The Law and the Precedent
Read the law. It is very simple to understand.
Statute Law states that the husband is not allowed to act as an agent for the wife. Justice George PALMER said in his judgment that Chris SHEA acted as my agent. It appears, on the face of it, that I had been considered as a “chattel” of Chris SHEA. The marital property had arisen out of Chris Shea's and my marital relationship.
Legal proceedings: Provision allows a wife to sue her husband for repayment of money lent or for any other civil debt. In proceedings transferred from the Family Court to the Supreme Court under a cross-vesting order, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has not only the powers of the Family Court, but also has its own powers: Richardson v Gill (1997) 141 FLR 314; a Digest [Family law & child welfare]
The "Annotation" means that this is the case precedent that is applicable to my case, e.g. an example of the scenario that occurs after the law is applied.
Richardson v Gill (1997) 141 FLR 314 – Young J, 16-27 May, 16 October 1997
The wife got her money back plus interest. The Defendant (the husband) had to pay the court costs.
This case had originated in the Family Court, as had my matter, i.e. pursuant to Family Law Act 1975 - Section 4 - (ca)
"proceedings between parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties to the marrige or either of them, being proceedings (i) arising out of the marital relationship".
Justice George PALMER had erred in statute law.
Every other judge who cited Justice George PALMER’s judgment of 1 August 2003 had also erred in statute law. This includes the High Court judges. Erred in law means that they broke the law.
Giselle Monika WAGNER admitted Negligence
Giselle Monika WAGNER said in court a number of times that she never informed me that she had transferred my marital home and monies to Peter DEANS at the time she was committing this awful horror to my person.
Giselle Monika WAGNER was my solicitor. When I hired Giselle Monika WAGNER she agreed that she would look after my best interests above all else.
Giselle Monika WAGNER further broke the law in that she did not keep books of account as she was required by law to do so – Legal Profession Act 1987 No 109, Section 62 and New South Wales Manual Regulation 26 [85,000] Keeping of Accounts: Section 62.
Justice George PALMER said that I could sue Giselle Monika WAGNER if I suffered any loss.
Instead Justice George PALMER dismissed my application against her and awarded costs against me, so as she could go and bankrupt me.
Justice George PALMER excused Giselle Monika WAGNER and Adrian HOLMES from the hearing before working out how much money I had lost.
The solicitors for Giselle Monika WAGNER, MALLESONS STEPHEN JAQUES, with the aid of the Court, broke the proceedings into two parts - one part stayed in the Equity Division, Supreme Court, while the other part - the costs order - was transferred to a fabricated court procedure in the Common Law Division.
In the Common Law Court it was said that I was the Plaintiff in the matter. I was not! I had never started any proceedings in the Common Law Division. The defendants were the same as they were in the Equity Division court matter. The cost order matter was transferred to this court so that the costs order was a final judgment in a fabricated court procedure. Being a final judgment in a court matter wherein there were no hearings held in the Common Law Division, I could be bankrupted if I didn't pay Giselle Monika WAGNER's court costs on instant demand!
As a bankrupt I would have no legal rights in the Equity Division, Supreme Court. The Defendants could do anything that they liked, including sucking my estate dry as a bone for the benefit of Peter DEANS.
Tricky business this one!
The Bankruptcy Law
Pursuant to the -
Bankruptcy Act 1966 Sections 5, 58 (4), and 116
the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy should have clawed all the marital assets back from Peter John DEANS and after the property proceedings had been held in the Family Court paid out the debt owed to the creditors, i.e. Giselle Monika WAGNER and Adrian HOLMES out of my share of the marital assets.
This did not happen. But then again, I really should not have been bankrupted in the first place.
The Bankruptcy Act Section 58 (4) states, in short, that payment for rent shall not be levied or proceeded with against my property as I am a bankrupt.
In other words, I should not have been forced to pay rent of almost 10 years to Peter DEANS.
There was no rental agreement between Peter DEANS and I for me to pay him rent.
Once a bankrupt all your debts are cleared - all gone. But this didn't happen in my case!
The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy erred in law as did the Federal Court and the Equity Division, Supreme Court!
Sally NASH (solicitor) and Stephen GOLLEDGE (counsel) for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy had contravened
Family Law Act 1975, Section 79
Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995 No.7 - Queensland Consumer Code and Regulations Sections 6, 8, 12, 14, 15 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L) and (O); 16; 17; 18; 38; 39 and 44
Section 44 states that Third Party mortgages are prohibited.
Pursuant to Family Law Act 1975 Section 79, Sally Nash and Stephen Golledge on behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy should not have distributed my ex-husband's and my marital property.
According to Statute Law I should not have been forced to pay Peter DEANS' mortgage and his personal bills.
Justice David Jacob HAMMERSCHLAG had presided over the accounting hearing.
Pursuant to the Contract that Peter DEANS signed, he now owes my ex-husband's and my marital assets the amount of $747,080.74 on the monies that he had borrowed plus interest. Instead my estate is now worth a paltry deficit of minus $26,711.76 plus court costs of Peter DEANS. You can guess who got the money! Peter DEANS gets $899,042.25. Something for nothing!
Not an element of contract law at all!
Top of Page