Logo

‘My Ex has Control of all our Financial Assets!’ – Your Right to Partial Property Settlements during Financial Separations

by

A financial separation is often a difficult and stressful process for both parties involved, particularly so where your ex-partner maintains control over joint assets or has a much higher earning capacity. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the case that one party to a financial separation maintains financial control over the other due to their higher earning capacity or control over joint assets. For example, this may be the result of one party withdrawing from the workforce during the relationship to take on the role of the primary carer of the parties’ children.

As the process of finalising financial settlements can often take months or even years to be resolved, it may be the case that the party with a lower earning capacity will face financial burdens and may require additional funds to support their daily living expenses, legal fees and/or educational costs. In these circumstances the burdened party may seek what is known as a ‘partial property settlement’; this is essentially an ‘advance’ of funds which can be paid before the final settlement is complete.

Partial property settlements can be ordered in these circumstances to counteract the inequity in the parties’ access to assets and/or financial resources during negotiations or proceedings. These settlements are recognised and accounted for in subsequent negotiations and proceedings as a distribution made in the otherwise burdened party’s favour.

 

What do I need in order to be successful in a partial property settlement?

The Family Court of Western Australia under sections 79 and 80 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) has the discretion to make an interim property order when it is appropriate and in the interests of justice. The primary consideration for the Court when adjudicating these matters regards the current financial circumstances of the parties as opposed to the purpose for which the funds are sought.

An application for partial property settlement requires the applicant to satisfy the Court of the following elements:

  • A source for finance of the payment can be identified;
  • There is a party with the majority control of assets or relative financial strength;
  • The payment must not be more than the party will ultimately receive from the settlement;
  • There is a reasonable explanation on what the funds are for; and
  • It is ‘just and equitable’ and in the interest of justice to make the partial property settlement order.

It is noted that the Court does not make interim cost orders such as partial property settlements without a strong consideration to the circumstances of each party. Essentially, the Court will make this determination on the basis of the evidence that is before it with respect to the value of the asset pool, the initial contributions of the parties and the contributions of the parties throughout the marriage, but most importantly, if it considers it is just and equitable to do so.

An applicant must convince the Court on the evidence at hand that you will, without doubt, receive more in the financial settlement than you are asking for on this interim basis. This is to ensure the payment cannot cause injustice later on where the relationship assets have already been spent.

Where the Court makes this order, it is described as an ‘add-back’. That is, the funds which are distributed to a party via a partial settlement will be acknowledged and added back to the value of the asset pool available for distribution, but is recognised to have been distributed in one party’s favour already.

 

Is partial property settlement my only option?

Other orders can be sought to remedy the discrepancies in parties’ resources during family law proceedings. These include seeking a periodical or lump sum for spousal maintenance under ss72 and 74 of the Family Law Act or seeking a “dollar for dollar” order under s117(2) to cover the expense of legal fees.

 

How can I apply for a partial property settlement?

If you have not commenced proceedings but seek to have a partial property settlement, you can apply for this via interim Orders sought in your initiating documents before the Court. If proceedings have already commenced, a partial property settlement must be applied for via a Form 2, ‘Application in a Case’. These can be filed on the eCourts website after paying the relevant fee.

If the contents of this article appear relevant to your circumstances, or if you require any assistance with your family law matter, please contact our office on (08) 9408 5212.

 

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

I think it’s time you leave! – Your rights to ‘Exclusive Occupation’ of the Family Home

by

Separating from a spouse or a significant other can be stressful at the best of times. Typically, issues arise where both parties refuse to give up their right to reside in the family home. This begs the question, who has the right to remain in the family home?

Ordinarily, one or both of the parties will agree to move out of the family home in a bid to move on and sever their ties to the relationship. However, in some circumstances both parties will refuse to leave the family home, which often results in a hostile living situation.

In these circumstances, an aggrieved party may apply to the Family Court of Western Australia for an exclusive occupation order. The Court may grant this order where they consider it ‘proper’ in the particular circumstances of that case. The power to make a “sole use and occupancy” order is by way of injunction. For married or de facto couples, these orders are made by reference to sections 114(1) and 114(2a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), respectively.

Where the matter involves children, the Court may grant one of the aforementioned injunctions to restrain a party from entering or remaining in the child’s place of residence if they deem this action necessary to protect and advance the welfare of the child. Essentially, the Court’s paramount duty will be to protect children from psychological stresses caused by friction between parents, and this is primarily encapsulated by the Court’s obligation to make orders that prioritise the best interests of the children.

 

Matters involving children:

 In the case VCM v KRM [2005] FMCAfam 108, a mother who resided with her husband and 3 children sought exclusive occupation of the family home. In making its decision to grant the exclusive occupation of the family home to the mother and the children, the Court had to determine whether this order would be in the children’s best interests.

The Court turned its mind to several circumstances, including but not limited to the fact that:

  • The parents often fought verbally;
  • The parents fought physically; and
  • The children were in the care of the mother.

In making this order, the Court essentially restrained the Father from occupying the family home as the circumstances of the case were such that the Court deemed it in the children’s interests that they reside solely with their mother at the family home.

 

Factors considered in making an Order for Exclusive Occupation:

 The Court will take into account a number of considerations when deciding whether a particular party should gain the right to solely occupy the family home.

The overarching consideration of the Court is as to the practicality of granting exclusive occupation, having regards to the realities of family life (Bassett v Bassett [1975] 1 ALL ER 513, 520)

The relevant factors outlined in recent case authority is as follows:

  1. Needs of children
  • If children are involved, then the needs of the children are a matter that is always at the forefront of the Court’s mind when making a decision. We note that it is common for the party who cares for the children to be provided exclusive occupation of the family home (In the Marriage of Gillie).

 

  1. Likely Hardship to the children or either party
  • The Court will also take into consideration the hardship that will be suffered by both parties from an emotional and financial perspective if exclusive occupation is not granted to them. If there are children involved, then their needs will be given paramount consideration.

 

  1. Practical effect on Family life
  • The practical effect of an order is a primary consideration of the Court. This factor is assessed with reference to the realities of family life should one party gain rights to exclusive occupation over the other (Basset v Basset).

 

  1. Means of the Parties
  • The Court will also consider the means and needs of the parties. This involves the Court turning its mind to the costs involved in moving homes and finding alternative accommodation. The Court will also consider whether or not the home subject to the order is used as an integral part of either of the parties’ business operations (Mafrica v Mafrica).

 

  1. Conduct of the Parties
  • Finally, the Court will take the conduct of the parties into consideration when deciding whether or not one party should be granted exclusive occupation over another. This relates to whether physical or verbal abuse has been directed to one party by the other.
  • This becomes a particularly relevant factor where the abuse is such that one party fears for their safety or the children’s. In these circumstances, the aggrieved party will often be successful in an application for the exclusive occupation of the property (In the Marriage of Davies).

 

The Court in Saveree & Elenton noted that the factors considered are non-exhaustive and each case must ultimately be determined on its facts. The Family Court will only make an order for exclusive occupation where it considers this action to be ‘just and fair’ in all of the circumstances.

 

If you require assistance with any of the matters discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact us today on (08) 9408 5212 for a free 15-minute consultation with one of our lawyers.

 

Please note the above is general in nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific facts of your legal matter.

Consideration of Inheritance in Property Settlements: Who’s Entitled to What?

by

How Does Financial Separation Work?

There are four ways financial separation can occur:

  1. By Orders of the Family Court of Western Australia;
  2. By Consent Orders;
  3. By Binding Financial Agreement; or
  4. By Informal Agreement.

You should seek legal advice from a lawyer experienced in Family Law property matters to determine the best form of financial separation for you.

When finalising your orders formally, there is an expectation that Orders or an Agreement should completely sever the financial ties between the parties, known as the clean break principle, and then ‘vest’ any property a party is entitled to in the name of that party. In doing that, it means that except in very limited circumstances, your ex should not be able to come back and try and seek further funds from you.

 

What Happens if I receive an Inheritance Payment Prior to Financial Separation?

It’s not always simple to come to an agreement on financial separation, and there is always a risk if you only come to an informal agreement, that your ex can try and come back later and seek more funds from you. This may occur where one party receives an inheritance after the death of a parent.  

There is a common misunderstanding that inheritance received after separation, or towards the end of the relationship will not be included in the asset pool. This is not always correct. Assets obtained post-separation or to benefit only one party are still considered a part of the asset pool. The Courts starting position is that all assets obtained, during the relationship and even post-separation is to be considered during a property split. This is often referred as the “global approach” and whilst it is common, there are exceptions to the rule. If a party wishes to “quarantine” inheritance then they must be able to show there are sufficient funds in the asset pool to ensure a just and equitable division and that the other party can still receive a fair portion of the asset pool without having to take from the inheritance.

When it comes to inheritance, relevant considerations include, when the inheritance was received and the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the other party.

 

Timing

If the inheritance was received early in the relationship or even before the relationship commenced, it is usually treated as an initial contribution of that party and is a relevant factor in the division of assets.

If the inheritance was received during the relationship it can be considered to be used for the “betterment of the family or the couple” and is likely to be considered a contribution to the relationship and not to the benefit of either party. The exception to this however is if the deceased makes it very clear that the inheritance is only to benefit the inheriting party. In which case, the funds would likely be considered as a financial contribution by the inheriting party and there would be some recognition in the division of the asset pool of the money provided.

If the inheritance is received post-separation, there are two ways it could be treated, and, depending on your individual separation will depend how it is treated. It will be treated as either:

  1. Part of the global assets; or
  2. A quarantined asset

 

Relationship Between the Deceased and the Other Party

When deciding if an inheritance should be shared between the spouses in a financial separation, the court considers the intention of the deceased. If the deceased appears to have left the inheritance for the betterment of the entire family, a court is likely to include it in the asset pool despite the receipt of the inheritance being after separation. On the other hand, if it appears to have been left only to the named beneficiary, it is likely to be kept apart from the divisible assets. Similarly, the court will look at the relationship of both spouses with the deceased to discern what the intentions would have been.

Essentially, if the inheritance is received before finalising Consent Orders for the property settlement, it is possible that it may be included in the asset pool. It is best to seek legal advice on the possibility of including or protecting an inheritance from being included.

For advice on financial separation, especially if you are aware you or the other party will be, or have, received inheritance or the likelihood of inclusion of an inheritance after separation, contact us on (08) 9408 5212 or info@cdlawyers.com.au to book a meeting.

 

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

When Are Family Property Orders Really Final? Challenging an Order

by

Most clients want complete certainty and a ‘final deal so I can move on with my life’ when it comes to resolving the matter, especially when it comes to finalising financial separation matters.

Under Section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the Court has a duty to make orders that as far as practicable, will “finally determine the financial relationships”. This is commonly known as the “clean break” principle, and it is an attempt by the Court to ensure that the parties are no longer financially reliant on each other and to attempt to stop any further litigation between them with regard to financial matters.

There’s always a risk though that the ‘final’ agreement isn’t the right agreement. What if, for example, there’s a change of circumstances and you cannot comply with the orders? Or you find out your ex had hidden assets? Or trying to comply with the orders is going to cause you significant financial hardship? In these situations, having orders as “final” may be problematic. With this in mind, Section 79A of the Act gives the Court the power, in their discretion, to potentially ‘set aside’ or vary financial orders.

Note that Section 79A only applies to financial orders, NOT parenting orders.

 

What is Section 79A?

Section 79A provides the circumstances by which a Court may set aside or vary existing financial orders. The scope of this section is quite limited, a matter of changing your mind will not be enough to have an order set aside. There must be evidence of:

  • Miscarriage of justice by reason of fraud, duress, suppression of evidence, the giving of false evidence or any other circumstance;
  • Where circumstances have arisen since the order was made whereby it is impracticable for the order to be carried out;
  • Where a person has defaulted in carrying out an obligation imposed upon him or her by the order;
  • Where, in exception circumstances, the applicant will suffer hardship if the court does not vary or set aside the order; or
  • Proceeds of crime order has been made covering property of the parties.

Section 79A applications can be made by any party affected by an order of the Court, and is usually done as a result of a disagreement, if both parties are affected and wish to change the orders they may also make an application to vary or set aside orders by agreement, also known as consent.

 

Will a Section 79A be Easy?

Section 79A matters are legal complex (both as an applicant or a respondent – we represent both). If you are considering making one of these applications, you should strongly consider seeking legal advice. At Carter Dickens Lawyers we have experience and knowledge with regard to Section 79A applications.

Contact our Office on (08) 9408 5212 to arrange an initial appointment to discuss the merits of your case with one of our lawyers.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

Pressure to Settle in Parenting Matters & Without Prejudice Offers

by

Parenting disputes affect people deeply. When accusations are being thrown around, and in particular when children are being withheld from a parent, tensions can run high. A person can feel a strong desire to agree to parenting arrangements they feel are unfair because they want it to be over, or want their children returned.

 During negotiations, you might receive a proposed “Minute of Consent Orders” for parenting arrangements that you don’t agree with, but you may feel tempted to sign them to see your kids again. In most cases, each parent will believe that what they are proposing is necessary for the best interests of the children, even though their beliefs differ. 

 In some circumstances however, a party might choose to withhold children as a strategy to get the other party to sign their preferred parenting orders – rather than because they believe they need to withhold the children to keep the children safe. This is rare, but does happen. 

 However, communications exchanging proposals to settle are typically ‘Without Prejudice’, which means that the proposed arrangements cannot be adduced in evidence should your dispute end up before a judge.  If you think someone is trying to pressure you to agree in a way that demonstrates their bad faith, you may want to show this to the Court, to have the Court to take this into account.

 However, the general rule for ‘Without Prejudice’ communications is that they cannot be shown to the Court.

 

Without Prejudice Communications

 The term ‘Without Prejudice’ invokes a particular kind of legal privilege, which is specifically permitted for negotiating settlements. The privilege is that that communication cannot be relied on by the other party in Court proceedings. For example, it cannot be introduced as evidence claiming, for example, to demonstrate the weakness of that party’s case.

 Providing the other party’s without prejudice offers and communication to the Court is typically disallowed, and if they are filed by the other party, they will be struck out by the Court in line with this privilege, and for good reason. This is because the ability to engage in ‘Without Prejudice’ communications is generally to the advantage of both parties, as it allows them to make offers to settle a matter without fear of having the offer brought up later.

 This applies in the Family Court, it can be found in the Family Law Rules at 10.2:

 FAMILY LAW RULES 2004 – RULE 10.02 OPEN AND “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OFFER

 10.02(1) An offer to settle is made without prejudice (a without prejudice offer) unless the offer states that it is an open offer.

 10.02(2) A party must not mention the fact that a without prejudice offer has been made, or the terms of the offer:

 (a) in any document filed; or

 (b) at a hearing or trial.

 The rule against providing without prejudice communications to the Court is a part of a broader set of rules regarding evidence.

 

Family Court and the Rules of Evidence

 The Family Court has a number of notable exceptions to the normal rules of Evidence. The ability to quote children’s speech, when they are not giving evidence themselves, which would normally be a breach of the Rule of Evidence against Hearsay, is the most well-known example, located at 69ZV of the Family Law Act (“the Act”).

 Family Law however can involve a number of other exceptions to standard rules of evidence. More generally, 69ZT “Rules of evidence not to apply unless court decides,” specifies the parts of the Evidence Act (Cth), which codifies the principles of evidence, which the Court may decide whether or not to apply in child-related proceedings as per the considerations in that section, and what weight to give them. This includes documents and other evidence including demonstrations, experiments and inspections, and evidence that is hearsay, opinion, admissions, evidence of judgments and convictions, tendency and coincidence, credibility and character.

 The important principle to keep in mind is that in parenting matters, the primary consideration is the best interests of the children. What is in the best interests of the children is determined by consideration of primary and secondary factors at s60CC of the Family Law Act.

 One interesting example of a departure from normal legal principles regards ‘Without Prejudice’ communication. Typically, if a party tries to put ‘Without Prejudice’ communication before the Court as evidence, it will be struck out and not considered by the Court.

 

Can Without Prejudice Communications ever be Submitted to the Court?

 However, there are exceptions, generally and in the Family Law specific to the normal ‘Without Prejudice’ principles.

 Sometimes, without prejudice communications will include content which go towards demonstrating a fact of sufficient significance that the Court may choose to allow their entry into evidence.

In Parenting matters, the best interests of the children are the primary consideration, as per s60B and s60CA. As such, if the other party provides ‘Without Prejudice’ communications, such as an offer that provides for orders which implicitly contradicts other assertions that have been made in Court documents, the court may be willing to enter the ‘Without Prejudice’ communications into evidence.

 This has been discussed in the WA case S and K [2007] FCWA 17, where Her Honour Justice Crisford identifies, at 28-32:

 28 It goes without saying that it is important to preserve confidentiality in relation to offers. Full and frank negotiation needs to take place between parties so that matters may be resolved without the need for further court action. Often in children’s matters, the very avoidance of litigation can itself be in the best interests of the children. Whilst children are not parties to the proceedings, they are well and truly the subject of the proceedings. The principles governing these sorts of proceedings are very different to those relating to property matters.

 29 However, whilst it is important for negotiation that confidentially be preserved, especially in light of the rules of the Court, I am of the view that the preservation of confidentiality is not absolute. One of the main purposes of the Rules is that cases are resolved in a just manner. The Rules do not provide a complete code of the Court’s powers. Other powers are found in the provisions of various Acts, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the common law.

 30 Hutchings v Clarke may well stand for the proposition that the issue of legal professional privilege does not operate to exclude evidence if in the discretion of the trial Judge such evidence is required to be put before the Court in order to preserve the best interests of the child.

 31 There is no doubt that it is important to preserve confidentiality and to foster an environment that allows parties to negotiate without fear they will be compromised in an endeavour to settle matters. However, offers can be made for a number of reasons and the overarching principle is always the best interests of the child. It is not the sole consideration but it is the paramount one.

 32 The Court should not be precluded from obtaining information to ensure that the principle is met, especially in cases of such naked acrimony as this.

 

As such, if you have been sent ‘Without Prejudice’ communications in a Family Law matter, where untrue claims are made or strict orders are being sought when the other party does not actually require those Orders, the Court may be willing to accept that correspondence of an offer to settle into evidence. 

Such a circumstance might be withholding children except when supervised by a professional supervision agency; while simultaneously making an offer that involves children spending time without any external supervision. 

However, other avenues for adducing the same evidence ought to be pursued first. The Court will be very hesitant to override the general rule regarding ‘Without Prejudice’ offers, as ‘Without Prejudice’ offers are a very significant element which benefit the ability to conduct settlement negotiations, and this privilege will not be dismissed lightly.

Indeed, settling a parenting matter by agreement may, in many cases, be very much in the best interests of the child, as ongoing proceedings may very well put children under stress, increase hostility between parents, and potentially require the children to be involved in proceedings to some degree.

As such; the possibility of successful negotiations, and thus ability to engage in these negotiations ‘Without Prejudice’, towards reaching parenting orders both parties may not like but are prepared to accept may well be a better outcome than the outcome of ongoing proceedings even should the party’s preferred orders be made and their concerns legitimate, given the impact on the children of ongoing proceedings. 

If you need advice about your family court negotiations, please contact us on (08) 9408 5212 for a free telephone consultation. 

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific case in question.

The Pitfalls of Homemade Wills

by

Homemade Wills are a tempting proposition for those interested in reducing the costs associated with obtaining legal services. Whilst on the surface these Homemade Wills kits appear be straightforward and binding, this is not always the case. It is important to ensure that your Will is prepared in the proper legal manner so that your wishes are unambiguous, and your estate may be correctly dealt with at the time of your passing.

The common issues surrounding Homemade Wills have been exemplified in the Supreme Court of Western Australia’s recent case James Edward Donnelly as executor of the estate of Sarah Shulman v Donnelly 2020 WASC 254. In this decision, Master Sanderson at [13] heavily criticised the ambiguity of the Homemade Will in question, stating:

“Although it is a valid will because it complies with the provisions of the Wills Act apart from appointing the plaintiff as executor, it has no content. It makes no disposition. It is meaningless.”

In this case, despite there being every reason to believe that the deceased intended to leave her entire estate to the first defendant, even the most benign interpretation of the Homemade Will offered no benefit to the first defendant. Apart from being mentioned as executor of the Will, the first defendant was not mentioned at all – in fact, no-one was.

Master Sanderson suggests in this judgement that there is no question of the Will being ambiguous, as it simply remained silent on who was to receive the benefit (the beneficiaries of the Will). Through proper exercise of the construction of the Will, it was determined by Master Sanderson that, on the facts, he was satisfied that the deceased intended to leave her estate to the first defendant.

Although in this case the exercise of discretion fell in the favour of the defendant, this acts as a reminder as to the pitfalls of drafting Homemade Wills.

 

How do the Courts Construct an Ambiguous Wills?

You may be wondering what process is undertaken to properly “construct” or “read” an ambiguous will by the Courts? Construction of a Will is a two-step process:

  1. Firstly, the Will is to be read on its own without regard to any evidence. If this does not lead to an interpretation of the Will then an attempt must be made to deduce the intentions of the testator.
  2. If the intentions of the testator cannot be readily discerned for any reason, then the court should proceed to construe the Will with the assistance of cannons of construction. These cannons often allow a judicial officer to review extrinsic materials, as per section 28A of the Wills Act 1970 (WA), to better consider the intentions of the testator at the time of drafting the Will.

 

Common issues with Homemade Wills

Although use of these Homemade Wills kits may provide you a legally binding Will, it may not be drafted in such a way as to achieve what you truly intended. Common issues with Homemade Wills include the following:

  1. Failure to properly date the Will;
  2. Leaving the wrong assets or assets you are not entitled to distribute;
  3. Misunderstanding legal definitions;
  4. Losing the Will;
  5. Incorrectly witnessing documents;
  6. Unintended Tax Consequences;
  7. Appointing the wrong Executor;
  8. Ignoring potential and eligible beneficiaries; and
  9. Failing to provide for the guardianship of children.

 

Recent Judicial Commentary regarding Homemade Wills

Despite gaining popularity in recent years, Homemade Wills have been an enduring cause of concern within the Judicial system. Recent Western Australian examples which demonstrate this concern include the following:

Kossert v Ruggi as Executor of Will of Korps (No 2) [2012] WASC 191

Kenneth Martin J at [8] stated:

‘Sadly, as so many home-made wills seem to do because of a failure to receive proper legal advice, it throws up the question of [the deceased’s] failure to deal fully by his will with the one substantial asset he left, namely the house and land’

 

O’Brien, as Executor of Will of Hogan v Warburton [2012] WASC 82

EM Heenan J at [3] stated:

“ [the deceased’s] last will was prepared by him or at his direction apparently without any legal advice or assistance. Major difficulties have arisen in determining the proper construction of the testament and, in particular, whether or not it fails fully to dispose of the testator’s estate, so leaving a partial intestacy”

EM Heenan J at [58]:

“Obvious difficulties arise when parts of a will are ambiguous or, worse still, inconsistent. Such problems are often experienced in home-made wills such as this..”

 

Thomas v Pearman [2017] WASC 209

Master Sanderson at [1] criticised Homemade Wills, stating:

“The will and the codicil were home-made. They comprise 14 pages in all. They are a particularly egregious example of the folly of home-made wills.”

 

How can Carter Dickens Lawyers help?

Our expert lawyers are able to properly draft a will in the accepted legal manner, ensuring all of your wishes are to be fulfilled upon your passing. This will circumvent the ambiguous situations that often arise from Homemade Wills kits, and ensures that you can confidently have your Will executed as per your intentions.

At Carter Dickens Lawyers, we have the experience and knowledge to help you navigate this potentially complicated area of law. We understand the difficulties faced by families upon the death of a loved one, and we hope to ease this process by ensuring your final wishes are understood and binding.

Our Wills and Estates matters are provided on a fixed fee basis. Wills and Estates matters we may assist you with include the following:

  • Single Wills
  • Couples Wills
  • Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA)
  • Enduring Power of Guardianship (EPG)
  • Advanced Medical Directive
  • Probate Application
  • Letters of Administration (Deceased had no Will)

If you would like to discuss your Wills and Estates related matter, please contact Carter Dickens Lawyers on (08) 9408 5212.

Please note that the above is general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice. All situations are different and legal advice must always be tailored to the specific situation.

 

Contact Us

Suite 102, 126 Grand Boulevard, Joondalup WA 6027

Phone: (08) 9408 5212

info@cdlawyers.com.au