Transcript of Proceedings: Auscript Australasia Pty LTD

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825
Level 16 Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000

PO Box 13038 George St Post Shop, Brisbane QLD 4003
T: 1800 AUSCRIPT (1800 287 274) F: 1300 739 037
E: clientservices@auscript.com.au W: www.auscript.com.au
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSCRIPT IN CONFIDENCE
5 O/N 138069
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PARRAMATTA REGISTRY
10
DUNKLEY FM
15
No. PAC 6601 of 2007
20
<SURNAME>
and
25 <SURNAME> FAMILY LAW FINAL HEARING
PARRAMATTA
30
10.58 AM, THURSDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2009
MR P. <SURNAME> appears in person

35 MS S. BEVAN appears for the respondent mother
Copyright in Transcript is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Apart from any use permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968 you are not permitted to reproduce, adapt, re-transmit or distribute the Transcript material
in any form or by any means without seeking prior written approval from the Family Court of Australia.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-1

©Commonwealth of Australia Transcript in Confidence
HIS HONOUR: Mr <SURNAME>. Mr <SURNAME>, just come in, sir. Have a
seat.
MR <SURNAME>: I will do so if I can enter with all my inalienable rights intact,

5sir.
HIS HONOUR: No, you can just come in and have a seat, or you can not participate
at all. It’s a matter for yourself.
10MR <SURNAME>: I’ll do so if you agree that all my inalienable rights are intact,
sir.
HIS HONOUR: No, I don’t agree.
15MR <SURNAME>: You don’t agree that I have my inalienable rights intact, sir?
HIS HONOUR: No, I don’t. It’s a matter for you as to whether you want to
participate or not, so if you do want to participate, come and have a seat at the bar
table.
20
MR <SURNAME>: I will do so, sir, if you agree that I have all my inalienable
rights intact.
HIS HONOUR: No.

25
MR <SURNAME>: Are you denying me my inalienable rights, sir?
HIS HONOUR: I am.
30MR <SURNAME>: So let me just record this then.
HIS HONOUR: Call Mrs <SURNAME>. It’s all recorded, sir. You don’t need to.
You can get copies of the transcript. It’s all on record. Mrs <SURNAME>, is she
coming in?
35
MR <SURNAME>: I haven’t seen her, David.
HIS HONOUR: Didn’t talk to you, sir?
40MR <SURNAME>: There’s no one outside – she’s just arrived.
HIS HONOUR: Good, thank you. Ms Bevan, are you appearing for the respondent
today?
45MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right.
MS BEVAN: The respondent is before the court.

50
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-2
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-2

MR <SURNAME>: Sir, my name is Peter <SURNAME> – my calling is Peter
Andrew <SURNAME>. I have asked David Dunkley – I have told David Dunkley
that I will enter this court room if I have all my inalienable rights intact. David
Dunkley has said that I do not have all my inalienable rights intact. I will not enter
5this court room until such time as I have all my inalienable rights intact and you are
agreement, Mr Dunkley, to that.
HIS HONOUR: Just have a seat, sir.
10MR <SURNAME>: No, sir. I will have a seat when you agree I have all my
inalienable rights intact.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, do you rely on the amended response filed 21 April
2008?
15
MS BEVAN: Your Honour, I have a minute of order to hand up - - -
20MS BEVAN: - - - which varies that. I’m not sure whether you received my case
outline?
HIS HONOUR: I did.
25MS BEVAN: There is one additional order on this minute of order in relation to an
account in Jersey.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Can I have that? Now, the Jersey account,
where do I find about that?
30
MS BEVAN: Sorry?
HIS HONOUR: You mentioned an account in Jersey.
35MS BEVAN: It is point number - - -
HIS HONOUR: That’s five, is it?
MS BEVAN: It is, yes, your Honour.

40
HIS HONOUR: Yes, okay. What’s in that account?
MS BEVAN: In Australian dollars, your Honour, $A1458 using a conversion rate

of 1.6 Euro.
45
HIS HONOUR: Fourteen hundred?
MS BEVAN: Yes.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-3

HIS HONOUR: All right. So she relies on the minute of order, the affidavit sworn
the 10th of - - -
MS BEVAN: November.
5
HIS HONOUR: November, and a financial statement which was sworn on 20
November.
MS BEVAN: That’s correct, your Honour.

10
HIS HONOUR: Is that the documents?
MS BEVAN: They are, your Honour.
15HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr <SURNAME>, there was filed for you an application for
final orders on 3 December 2007 and there was also filed on that day an affidavit that
you swore on 13 June 2008 and a financial statement that you swore on 28
November 2007, and there don’t appear to be any updating documents since then.
Are you relying on any other documents?
20
MR <SURNAME>: I am not relying on any other documents to do with the
Australian Federal Magistrates Court.
HIS HONOUR: You are relying on those, or not on those?

25
MR <SURNAME>: I am not relying on those documents to deal with the situation
today and the question I have is may I take a seat with my inalienable rights intact?
HIS HONOUR: You can take a seat whenever you like.

30
MR <SURNAME>: When you agree that my inalienable rights are intact, I will
take a seat, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: It’s a matter for you as to whether you keep standing. So those
35documents aren’t relied on by you. If that’s the case, then you won’t have any
documentation before the court.
MR <SURNAME>: I have documentation to present before a common law court,

your Honour, but I am not going to answer until such time as you agree to the
40contract that my inalienable rights are intact.
HIS HONOUR: Well, it’s a matter that you either give me the documents now or
the case would proceed on an undefended basis.
45MR <SURNAME>: You have no right to proceed with the case on an undefended
basis, David. I have submitted my claim of right to the Queen, the Prime Minister,
the Attorney-General and the Governor-General, and they have consented by
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-4

acquiescence that you do not have a right to provide judicial – adjudication services
to me unless I consent.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, sir, you are an intelligent man and you know that that’s
5a nonsense.
MR <SURNAME>: Well, if that is a nonsense, David, you are going to have to sign
an affidavit under full penalty of perjury, full commercial liability, to say that it is a
nonsense. Are you willing to sign such an affidavit?
10
HIS HONOUR: No. I have just said that it is a nonsense. Now - - -
MR <SURNAME>: Well, what you say doesn’t matter. What matters is what you
are prepared to put on affidavit, David.
15
HIS HONOUR: All right. So there is no documents on which you seek to rely?
MR <SURNAME>: I have documents on which I seek to rely, but you have not
agreed to the contract that I can enter the court room with my inalienable rights
20intact.
HIS HONOUR: Sir, you either hand me the documents now or the matter proceeds
on an undefended basis.
25MR <SURNAME>: Well, if you proceed with the matter on an undefended basis,
David, I will charge you one million ounces of gold for enforcing an adjudication
process on me that I have not consented to as a sovereign.

30
MR <SURNAME>: I stand here before you as a sovereign of the nation – of the
land known as Australia, and I do not consent to your adjudication services in any
way, shape or form and I have plenty of witnesses who know this.
35HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Then the matter proceeds undefended.
MR <SURNAME>: Well, you will be charged one million ounces of gold for doing
this, David. Do you agree to that charge?
40HIS HONOUR: Charge whatever you like.
MR <SURNAME>: Thank you for agreeing to the bill, David. Your audience here
may wish to know why is it that a man cannot enter the court room with his
inalienable rights intact?
45
HIS HONOUR: The audience here observes that you are already within the court
room, sir. All right. Then, Ms Bevan, you better address me in respect of how we
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-5

would get to a set of circumstances that would mean that your client gets the totality
of the asset pool.
MS BEVAN: In order to do that, your Honour, I must tender a reasonably

5significant amount of documentation.
HIS HONOUR: All right.
MS BEVAN: In relation to the Black & Kellner and Weir & Weir principles, my
10case is that the husband, by failing to disclose his assets, has left the court in a
situation where, as those cases say, you should not be unduly cautious in making an
adverse – finding in favour of the innocent party.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.

15
MS BEVAN: In addition, your Honour, the husband himself in various emails has
made reference to his own income earning ability, in reference to his, in effect,
destruction of the company of the parties, Instant Business Intelligence. There are
other factors to take into account with regard to the Irish proceedings. My client’s
20evidence is those Irish proceedings are now concluded and cannot be reinstated.
HIS HONOUR: Well, they can’t be because, I mean, this is the venue for the
hearing, isn’t it?
25MS BEVAN: It is, and this is the appropriate jurisdiction, in my submission, your
Honour. Your Honour, there is also emails from the husband in which he makes
reference to having removed certain amounts of money, such as 7000 and 10,000
Euro out of the jurisdiction, that being the jurisdiction of Ireland.
30HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, you had better tender that material.
MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. I have on the front of it a list of those
documents. I estimate that it will take approximately an hour to read. However, I
can indicate that in relation to the husband’s emails, although it is certainly outside of
35the usual practice, those emails are quite lengthy and I have put highlights around the
relevant sections. I don’t ask you to read the whole of the emails, but simply those
highlighted sections.
HIS HONOUR: So the material that is produced in the ringback folder, you are
40seeking to tender that. Is that - - -
MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr <SURNAME>, there is sought to be tendered before

45me some material in a binder. Do you wish to be heard in respect to the tender?
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-6

MR <SURNAME>: I do wish to be heard, sir, and I wish you to agree that I can
approach the court with all my inalienable rights intact.
HIS HONOUR: So do you consent to the tender of the documents?

5
MR <SURNAME>: No, I do not consent to the tender of the documents, David.
HIS HONOUR: All right. On that basis don’t you consent to the tender of the
documents?
10
MR <SURNAME>: I don’t consent to the tender of the documents on the basis that
I have not been given the opportunity to enter the court with all my inalienable rights
intact.
15HIS HONOUR: That’s not a legal basis for the tender not to proceed, sir.
MR <SURNAME>: That’s the lawful basis for the tender not to proceed, David.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Then - - -

20
MR <SURNAME>: We are in common law jurisdiction, David.
HIS HONOUR: And on the basis that there is no objection that is sustainable at
law, I mark as exhibit A the material in a ringback folder.
25
EXHIBIT #A MATERIAL IN RINGBACK FOLDER
30HIS HONOUR: Anything further, Ms Bevan?
MS BEVAN: Would you prefer to have my submissions or after you have read - - -
HIS HONOUR: No, I had better read all that material.

35
MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: All right. We will adjourn while I go off and read.
40
ADJOURNED [10.20 am]
RESUMED [10.58 am]

45
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-7

HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, I have read the documents in exhibit A. Mr
<SURNAME>, there is a notice to produce. Do you produce any documents in
answer to that notice?
5MR <SURNAME>: Not in answer to that notice, David. I have plenty of

documents that I wish to provide to you.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Do you want to do that now, thank you.
10MR <SURNAME>: I would love to do that now, David, as long as you will agree
that I can enter between these two gates with all my inalienable rights intact. In
particular, my property rights.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. So if you are going to produce, produce them now
15please.
MR <SURNAME>: When you said, “Yes, all right,” do you mean that I may enter
with my property rights and my inalienable rights intact please, David?
20HIS HONOUR: No, I don’t mean that.
MR <SURNAME>: May I ask you a question then, David?
HIS HONOUR: No. Are you going to produce some documents in answer to the
25notice to produce?
MR <SURNAME>: So I want it recorded that I asked politely, “May I ask,” David,

“a question,” and he said, “No.”
30HIS HONOUR: Are you going to produce the documents?
MR <SURNAME>: Is your oath in the court room today, David?
HIS HONOUR: All right. I take it that means that you are not producing.
35
MR <SURNAME>: And I note for the audience that David has refused to answer
the question, is his oath in the court room today?
HIS HONOUR: So there is no documents in answer to the notice to produce, Ms

40Bevan.
MR <SURNAME>: There are documents in answer to that notice, David.

However, I will only present those documents in the case that my inalienable rights
are intact.
45
HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Bevan.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-8

MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, in the documents produced
– tendered, there wasn’t a reference to the 10,000 Euro, I believe.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.

5
MS BEVAN: I have one email and one letter to tender in addition in relation to that.
HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.
10MS BEVAN: It’s only the upper part of that email I ask you to read, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Mr <SURNAME>, there is produced or sought to be tendered, an

email from Sarah Bevan to SBA Mail dated 25 November 2009. Do you want to be
heard about that being marked as an exhibit?
15
MR <SURNAME>: David, I would like to participate in a friendly and peaceful
way in this conversation. However, I will only participate in this conversation with
my inalienable rights intact. By the way, I wish to declare that Mr Peter Andrew
<SURNAME> is a corporate straw man fiction and I am the prime creator and
20secured party for this corporate fiction. You may call me Peter, David.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Then I mark as exhibit B the email from Sarah Bevan
dated 25 November 2009 to SBA Mail.
25
EXHIBIT #B EMAIL FROM SARAH BEVAN TO SBA MAIL DATED
25/11/2009
30HIS HONOUR: Mr <SURNAME>, there is a letter from the Royal Bank of Canada
to Mrs J. <SURNAME> dated 20 March 2008 that is sought to be tendered. Do you
want to be heard about that?
MR <SURNAME>: David, I have asked you to please call me Peter. Mr

35<SURNAME> is a corporate straw man, it’s a dead entity. I will speak as Peter
Andrew of the <SURNAME> family, the primary creator and the secured party for
the corporate straw man, Mr Peter Andrew <SURNAME>.
HIS HONOUR: Then there being no objection, I mark as exhibit C the letter from
40the Royal Bank of Canada dated 20 March 2008 to Mrs J <SURNAME>.
EXHIBIT #C LETTER FROM THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA TO MRS J.

<SURNAME> DATED 20/03/2008
45
HIS HONOUR: Ms Bevan, in reading the material - - -
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-9

MS BEVAN: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: - - - there is an email called Dublin<SURNAME>s@gmail.com. I

presume that’s your client’s email address.
5
MS BEVAN: It is, your Honour, yes.
HIS HONOUR: And then there is some emails to a xxxxxxxxx. Who is that
person?
10
MS BEVAN: There was only one to Bruce and that’s the accountant, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: The accountant for what?
15MS BEVAN: For Instant Business Intelligence.
HIS HONOUR: And there was some emails directed to a Bill xxxxxx, x-x-x-x.
MS BEVAN: My client’s father.

20
HIS HONOUR: I see.
MS BEVAN: The others which is xxxxxxxxxxxx is my client’s son.
25HIS HONOUR: Son. Fair enough, I gathered as much. All right. Yes, all right,
then your submissions.
MS BEVAN: Thank you, your Honour. The orders my client seeks effects, when
one takes into account the add backs included, and in that regard, your Honour, I
30should have an amended case outline which I should have handed up earlier. There
are only some minor amendments on it which I have underlined - - -
HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right.
35MS BEVAN: - - - is to add in one add back of $7000.
HIS HONOUR: That’s the money that was transferred when the - - -
MS BEVAN: 7000 – yes, it was.

40
HIS HONOUR: When - - -
MS BEVAN: And the net is underlined on the two last pages, your Honour.
45HIS HONOUR: All right. Yes?
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-10

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, the effect of the orders sought by my client, if the add
backs are taken into account, and I will address you on those shortly, effects a split to
my client of the assets of 83 per cent, 83.3 to be precise. My submissions take an
alternative – two alternative approaches, or indeed a combination of both. That is
5that these orders are warranted on the basis of a Black & Kellner or Weir & Weir
type approach, as I highlighted earlier, that being that the court should not be unduly
cautious in making findings in favour of my client, the innocent party. The
alternative is that there should be a significant adjustment pursuant to section 75(2)
specifically in relation to subsection (b).
10
Your Honour, in relation to the assets, the Australian assets and the relatively minor
assets in Ireland are easy to identify. There is also, the husband asserts in emails, a
loan from his brother. The wife has given evidence that that loan was in fact a gift
and the husband’s own emails, as contained in the tender documents, refers to that
15amount not needing to be paid back.
HIS HONOUR: Still have to plead it as a contribution that comes in on his side of
the - - -
20MS BEVAN: You do, your Honour, and I will address you on contributions in that
respect when I get to it, but given that the husband has not put any evidence with
regard to the amount of the loan or the interest on the loan or the terms of repayment,
and also given the nature of his emails as contained in the tendered exhibit A, my
submission is that this is not a loan and should not be treated as a loan of the parties.
25In fact, it’s just simply a contribution issue that I will come back to.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MS BEVAN: Your Honour, in relation to the Black & Kellner considerations, you
30have before you emails from the husband where he refers to removing 7000 Euro out
of the jurisdiction. He also refers to paying that amount to a colleague in Germany,
as he says. You also have the email, exhibit B, which refers to him removing 10,000
Euro, he says to apply it for the sake of the family. My client’s evidence says
different and in fact my client’s evidence is the only sworn evidence you have before
35you, your Honour.
In addition, your Honour, there was also what I would submit was a very significant
asset, that being the company, Instant Business Intelligence. My client’s evidence is
clear that that business traded well, afforded them a very decent income.
40
HIS HONOUR: I don’t have any figures about it, do I? Don’t have any.
MS BEVAN: You don’t.
45HIS HONOUR: And there is no profit and loss statements, there is no taxation
returns.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-11

MS BEVAN: You have nothing in that regard, your Honour. My submission in that
respect is that you cannot know anything about the company and in fact the company
is now dissolved.
5HIS HONOUR: Dissolved, I saw that.
MS BEVAN: But in any event, there is no means by which that this court can say,
“I consider it had, or at some stage, a value of X.” That - - -
10HIS HONOUR: I mean it could have – it could simply just be a trading company
that they conducted a business out of. It had no other intrinsic value of its own.
MS BEVAN: As in just a simply income earning vehicle?
15HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MS BEVAN: It could, your Honour, but it also could have been a significant asset
itself. Tied in with the company is a reference, the husband makes in various emails,
to the software.
20
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MS BEVAN: That he has software and, on one of his emails, refers to, “No court
can force me to sell my software.”
25
HIS HONOUR: Sure.
MS BEVAN: My submission in that regard, your Honour, is that he is making a

concession that there is an asset. Again, you have absolutely no means of knowing
30what that asset is worth and that is because of the husband’s complete failure to
disclose any relevant material in this case, your Honour. Your Honour, in
circumstances where you have no knowledge of what the asset pool is, this is a case,
in my submission, that falls clearly within the guidelines set out in Weir & Weir and,
in my submission, should give you or should lead you to not be cautious at all in
35making findings in favour of my client. When I referred earlier to my client
receiving 83 per cent of the property pool, that is of what we know there is and the
easily identifiable add backs.
Your Honour, in respect of the add backs, it is my submission that where you have in
40effect concessions by the husband that those amounts have been removed for his own
purpose, have not been expended, on my client’s evidence, for the sake of the family,
but presumably have been used for his own personal purposes or simply, as he says,
paid to someone else, that being a colleague in Germany, then the appropriate course
is to treat those as add backs rather than as some sort of wastage consideration under
45Kabaly. Your Honour, in relation to – actually I will come back to the Kabaly issue
later, your Honour. In relation to those add backs, there is then the consideration of
whether they are to be treated as an asset rather than – under section 75(2)(o).
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-12

In that regard, given that the amounts are clearly identifiable and my client’s
financial statement sets out the means by which she has converted the amounts to
Australian dollars, that being 1.616 I believe, it is appropriate and in fact is really the
only course open to the court in respect of how to treat those factors. Your Honour,
5in relation to the contributions, my submission is that this is a case where there
should be a 55/45 per cent split in my client’s favour. Your Honour, the husband, if
he was to present a case, might have two factors that he could argue in relation to
contributions, that being that he provide a support to the wife’s two older children
from a previous relationship.
10
HIS HONOUR: A Robb & Robb type argument.
MS BEVAN: Sorry?
15HIS HONOUR: A Robb & Robb type argument.
MS BEVAN: Yes. However, that is mitigated by the fact, your Honour, that my
client received child support from the children’s father and they were only resident
with the parties for a limited part of the marriage. The other factor, your Honour, is
20the gift from his brother. He said it’s a loan, but as my submissions – as submissions
made earlier, it’s appropriate to be treated as a gift. My client’s evidence is that it’s
an amount of $15,000 that was advanced very early in the relationship. On the basis
of it being a relatively limited amount and the amount of time and the nature of the
contributions that have flowed since that time, my submission is it would really have
25little, if any, weight pursuant to Pierce & Pierce type considerations, your Honour.
On the contrary, your Honour, my client has made significant post separation
contributions and I should add, when I am jumping to post separation, apart from
those two factors that I have just mentioned, I would say that the contributions during
30the marriage would generally be considered 50/50. The husband was the bread
winner, my client was the carer of the children and the domestic duties. She did that
and that is how the parties organised their lives. It’s a clear case where, apart from
these other factors, it would otherwise be a 50/50 case, your Honour.
35HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MS BEVAN: Since separation, my client has continued to care for the children and
has continued to make all payments for the care of the children. She has given
evidence that in caring for the children she must pay private school fees and she is
40now also supporting Josephine, the older child, who is now at university.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, she is over 18.
MS BEVAN: Sorry?
45
HIS HONOUR: She is over 18.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-13

MS BEVAN: She is over 18.
HIS HONOUR: She is not a special needs child.
5MS BEVAN: She is not a special needs child, no.
HIS HONOUR: No.
MS BEVAN: I will come back to her in relation to section 75(2) though, your
10Honour. In addition, the contributions that my client has made post separation, in my
submission, have been made more onerous by the conduct of the husband. The
husband has embarked on a course of conduct which was designed – I withdraw that.
The husband has embarked on a course of conduct which has had a significantly
negative effect on my client. She says in her affidavit that she has received an
15extraordinary amount of emails from the husband and on that point, your Honour, I
must correct one point in my client’s affidavit. She says she has received what
numbers in the thousands. Since swearing the affidavit, she has taken the arduous
task of actually counting those that she still has, not knowing if any were deleted
when the husband accessed her account, and she has counted 550.
20
That doesn’t include the emails sent by the husband to various friends and colleagues
and family members. Whatever the number, whether it’s 550 or in the thousands, it
is an extraordinary number of emails all taking a very particular approach and all –
the combined effect must have an effect on my client. Your Honour, you don’t have
25it in evidence, but my client instructs me today that she has been in counselling for
18 months – she has now concluded that counselling – in order to deal with the
treatment she has had at the hands of the husband. Your Honour, as you will be
aware, Kennon & Kennon gives authority to where – in circumstances where there
has been domestic violence, but not only domestic violence, also other conduct
30which is not limited by description, the factors such as those should warrant a
consideration of weighting the contributions in favour of the – essentially the victim,
your Honour.
If ever a case fell into the category of conduct which is designed to, or which has led
35to making the innocent party have a more onerous job in doing their day to day life,
this is the case. Your Honour, the number of those emails, the nature of those
emails, the widespread nature of those emails, can only have an effect on my client.
Admittedly you don’t have expert evidence before you, but, in my submission, it is a
very clear cut case that by simple common sense the effect of those must have had on
40my client. Your Honour, in relation to the section 75(2) factors, my submission is
that there would be a very weighty adjustment in my client’s favour. If we started
from a proposition of a 55/45 contribution, my submission would be that it would be
appropriate to adjust, perhaps even up to 40 per cent in my client’s favour.
45HIS HONOUR: Why?
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-14

MS BEVAN: Your Honour, subsection (b) refers to the income and earning
capacity of the parties. The husband, throughout his emails, has referred to his
income earning capacity. In one of his more recent emails, he has referred to the
ability to earn 200,000 Euro. That, in rough figures, equates to – I am doing the
5figures in my head – about $A320,000 a year. He has referred to his consulting fee
of 1000 Euro a day, which is 1600 approximately, Australian dollars a day. If you
don’t consider that the property – that the business is indeed property and instead
was an income earning vehicle, the fact of the husband’s income earning during the
relationship suggests that he now has that earning capacity. Now whether he chooses
10to exercise that or not as a result of other conduct that he chooses to take, is a matter
for him. However, he has that capacity.
Your Honour, in addition my client has the care of the younger child of the marriage;
she is under 16. As her evidence says, she is required to pay private school fees for
15him and also maintain him in the usual way. In addition, subsection (d) refers to the
commitment to support others, as does subsection (e). She has given evidence that
she is paying Josephine’s university fees. As someone on a student permit, she has
limited work rights and therefore limited ability to support herself. In addition, your
Honour, subsection (k) refers to the effect of marriage on the earning capacity of a
20party. My client gives evidence that throughout the marriage, from very shortly after
the younger child’s birth, by agreement she was the one looking after the children.
She was the one who stayed home and devoted herself to the care of the children in
the house and effectively enabled the husband to go out and earn the amounts of
25money that he did, which then puts him in good stead to earn similar amounts of
money now.
HIS HONOUR: I just don’t have any evidence as to what he earned.
30MS BEVAN: What he earned. In my client’s affidavit, your Honour, there is some
evidence.
HIS HONOUR: It’s a statement.
35MS BEVAN: There is a bit of limited evidence, but you have it before you in
paragraphs 55 and 56. It’s within her knowledge to make those statements and
therefore, as the only evidence you have in this matter, my submission is that it’s
strong evidence that you are able to rely on, your Honour. She says that the
company paid the husband between six and 8000 Euro a month and that the company
40earned 220-odd thousand dollars in consulting fees and an additional amount in
software sales. Coming back to the effect of the marriage on my client’s earning
capacity, the absence for her from the workforce for such a length of time can only
have a negative effect on her earning capacity.
45Subsequent to separation, she obtained work as a carer which is a relatively unskilled

position, and now works in office administration. She has detailed what her income
is and it’s certainly not anywhere near what she says the husband’s income was.
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-15

Your Honour, another consideration under section 75(2) is the child support paid for
the children. Josephine is now over 18, but she was under 18 at the time of
separation; Joshua is still under 18. My client’s evidence is that apart from three
payments in November 2007, she has received no money whatsoever for the
5children. She has had to maintain the children since separation and I think it’s very
clear and my submission is there is no hope that the wife will ever receive any child
support for Joshua. Your Honour, turning lastly to section 75(2)(o), I mentioned
before the Kabaly principles in respect of wastage.
10HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MS BEVAN: Your Honour, the husband has engaged in conduct that I would
submit falls within the Kabaly principles in relation to two items: that being the
company. If your Honour accepts or is willing to make a finding that it may well
15have had a value, then the husband’s actions since separation have led it to now be
dissolved and for it to have no value, one would assume, at all. In addition, your
Honour has evidence about the actions the husband took in relation to the controlled
moneys account. The sale proceeds from the sale of the Pennant Hills property were
pursuant to orders of 16 June 2008 to be placed into controlled moneys account.
20
HIS HONOUR: Well, the best that they can get for that would be something like
about 2 or 3 per cent, isn’t it?
MS BEVAN: In a cash management account – it now has gone up, but previously
25which relates to most of the period – would be about 3 per cent. By my calculations,
being that it’s approximately six months, it would be around about four and a half
thousand dollars. Your Honour, there is very clear evidence from the husband’s
emails in respect of the controlled moneys, I can say that there was an attempt by my
client to have the registrar sign the required documents pursuant to section 106A.
30There was a difficulty in that regard as a result of the notation made by Judicial
Registrar Johnston that the agreement that Watts McCray would ....., the husband’s
former lawyers, was a notation only. That was therefore unsuccessful, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: That probably brings it to an end then.

35
MS BEVAN: Sorry?
HIS HONOUR: That probably puts it to an end. If it’s a notation only – I mean I
will have to look at that.
40
MS BEVAN: It’s unfortunate that in what happened, it was only a notation.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
45MS BEVAN: There was certainly no issue at the time and it wasn’t – that particular
part wasn’t drafted as consent orders. It was added by Judicial Registrar Johnston.
Your Honour, returning lastly to justice and equity in respect of the property issues,
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-16

while my client’s application for effectively 83 per cent of the assets is under what I
have suggested might be the appropriate percentage for her, it is all that she can get.
There is absolutely no point in making an order for the husband to pay her any
money because I think we can all accept that that simply will not happen based on
5the conduct of the husband to date. Your Honour, the husband has chosen not to
give evidence today. It can be as a result of what can only be described his
contemptuous attitude towards this court.
That the husband has presented with that attitude should leave the court no concerns
10as to failing the husband in terms of providing him justice and equity. Your Honour,
there are two additional orders sought that have only lately been sought in respect of
parenting. Your Honour, that is sole parental responsibility and an issue about the
passport. While sole parental responsibility should cover a passport, it is certainly
my experience in the past with other clients that the passport office doesn’t
15necessarily accept a sole parental responsibility order.
HIS HONOUR: When does the child’s passport expire?
MS BEVAN: The child’s passport expires in January, your Honour.

20
HIS HONOUR: He travels on an Australian passport?
MS BEVAN: He does, your Honour. Your Honour, there has been no section 60I
certificate. My submission is that this is a matter where mediation is – that the
25requirement for mediation should be waived because of the simple impracticality of
it. Your Honour, the husband – the only evidence I am relying on to support the sole
parental responsibility is the husband’s own emails where he refers to the children as
his former children and also makes a comment of “the leeches called wife and
children.” The husband himself has disowned the children. I can say to your Honour
30that those two emails that I provided are not the only emails in that regard; there are
numerous emails. I didn’t see any point in tendering all of those relevant emails,
your Honour. Your Honour, those are my submissions. I do have an application in
respect of costs though.
35HIS HONOUR: Well, I am going to reserve so you will have to come back in
respect of that. Mr <SURNAME>, are there any submissions that you want to
make?
MR <SURNAME>: David, I have asked you to call me Peter. Mr <SURNAME> is

40a corporate straw man of which I am the primary creator and secured party. For the
record – are we are on the record? I believe you have been recording. I believe you
have been recording?
HIS HONOUR: No, no. What happens here, Mr <SURNAME>, is that all
45proceedings in this court are recorded.
MR <SURNAME>: Okay. So for on the record, David, are you operating under
your oath today?
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-17

HIS HONOUR: Mr <SURNAME>, do you have any submissions that you wish to
make?
MR <SURNAME>: For and on the record, David, are you operating under your
5oath today?
HIS HONOUR: I take it that therefore you have no submissions that you wish to
make.
10MR <SURNAME>: So let the record show that a sovereign, Peter xxxxxxxxxxxx
<SURNAME>, has asked David twice, is he operating under his oath today, and
David has refused to answer is he operating under oath, and it’s my contention that
he is operating as a private employee and therefore has no jurisdiction over my
common law property rights.
15
HIS HONOUR: There being no submissions, then I reserve my decision. I will
deliver written judgment on a date to be advised.
MR <SURNAME>: Well, David, should you choose to violate my property rights,

20let me hereby notice you that I will address those rights in a common law jurisdiction
court. You may be charged with theft. You may be charged with violation of
common laws. I have with me documentation to demonstrate that I am the primary
creditor of the corporate straw man, Mr Peter xxxxxxxxxx <SURNAME>, and I
have the highest claim. I have not been able to present this documentation because
25the judge is acting – the magistrate is acting as a private employee of a private
company, not as a common law judge. He is in fact impersonating a public servant.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. We are adjourned.
30
MATTER ADJOURNED at 11.28 am INDEFINITELY
.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-18


Transcript of Proceedings: Auscript Australasia Pty LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript of Proceedings: Auscript Australasia Pty LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

ABN 72 110 028 825

Level 16 Santos Place, 32 Turbot Street, Brisbane QLD 4000

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

No. PAC 6601 of 2007

25 <SURNAME> FAMILY LAW FINAL HEARING

MR P. <SURNAME> appears in person

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-1

MR <SURNAME>: I will do so if I can enter with all my inalienable rights intact,

HIS HONOUR: No, I don’t agree.

HIS HONOUR: No.

HIS HONOUR: I am.

30MR <SURNAME>: So let me just record this then.

HIS HONOUR: Didn’t talk to you, sir?

40MR <SURNAME>: There’s no one outside – she’s just arrived.

45MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MS BEVAN: The respondent is before the court.

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-2

HIS HONOUR: Just have a seat, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: I did.

HIS HONOUR: You mentioned an account in Jersey.

35MS BEVAN: It is point number - - -

HIS HONOUR: That’s five, is it?

MS BEVAN: It is, yes, your Honour.

MS BEVAN: In Australian dollars, your Honour, $A1458 using a conversion rate

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-3

MS BEVAN: That’s correct, your Honour.

MS BEVAN: They are, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You are relying on those, or not on those?

HIS HONOUR: You can take a seat whenever you like.

MR <SURNAME>: I have documentation to present before a common law court,

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-4

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

40HIS HONOUR: Charge whatever you like.

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-5

MS BEVAN: In order to do that, your Honour, I must tender a reasonably

HIS HONOUR: All right.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS BEVAN: I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr <SURNAME>, there is sought to be tendered before

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-6

HIS HONOUR: So do you consent to the tender of the documents?

HIS HONOUR: All right. Then - - -

EXHIBIT #A MATERIAL IN RINGBACK FOLDER

30HIS HONOUR: Anything further, Ms Bevan?

HIS HONOUR: No, I had better read all that material.

RESUMED [10.58 am]

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-7

5MR <SURNAME>: Not in answer to that notice, David. I have plenty of

20HIS HONOUR: No, I don’t mean that.

MR <SURNAME>: May I ask you a question then, David?

MR <SURNAME>: So I want it recorded that I asked politely, “May I ask,” David,

30HIS HONOUR: Are you going to produce the documents?

MR <SURNAME>: Is your oath in the court room today, David?

HIS HONOUR: So there is no documents in answer to the notice to produce, Ms

MR <SURNAME>: There are documents in answer to that notice, David.

.PAC6601/2007 26.11.09 P-8

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Mr <SURNAME>, there is produced or sought to be tendered, an