• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Phone: 3465 9332

Logo
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Courtney Barton – Legal Practice Director & Founder
    • George Finn – Executive Director
    • Ellie Prior – Solicitor
    • Tenayah Miano – Paralegal
  • Our Services
    • Divorce Property Settlement Lawyers
    • Family Law Spousal Maintenance
    • Superannuation Splitting & Advice Lawyers
    • Child Custody Lawyers
    • Child Support Lawyers
    • Child Relocation Family Lawyers
    • Child Abduction Family Lawyers
    • Fixed Fee Consent Orders Brisbane
    • Binding Financial Agreements
    • Fixed Fee Divorce Lawyers
    • Domestic Violence Lawyer – DVO Domestic Violence Order
    • Child Adoption Lawyer & Advice
    • Family Court Process
    • Family Mediation Services Brisbane
      • Why Mediate with the Brisbane Family mediator?
      • Contact the Brisbane Family Mediator
      • Barton Family Mediation Costs & Processes
        • Barton Family Mediation Fixed Fees
  • Fixed Fees
  • Common questions
  • Family Law Videos
  • Family Mediation
  • Contact Us
  • Success Stories

Courtney’s Cases: Centrelink fraud or a fraudulent representation to the Court?

November 5, 2018 By Barton Family Law

Courtney’s Cases: Bisset & Rounds

The Case of Bisset & Rounds is a very interesting case where the Judge had to determine, did Ms Rounds commit centrelink fraud or a fraudulent representation to the Court? The Case serves as a warning for parties who are defrauding Centrelink or the ATO in respect of their income and assets.

The result was that the Court refused to accept the submission that Ms Round’s property was held on trust for her Mother and it was included in the pool available for distribution.

Read on to find the relevance of assertions made by Ms Rounds to Centrelink and the ATO, to the Court’s decision.

Bisset & Rounds [2018] FCCA 459

In Bisset & Rounds, one of the main issues in dispute between the parties was whether property B should be included in the property pool. Mr Bisset alleged it should be included in the pool whilst Ms Rounds alleged it was held on trust for her Mother.

The parties were 54 at the time of the trial, having been in a de facto relationship for 14 years.

The property pool at the time of the Trial was one of the central issues in dispute, namely in relation to Property B. The issue in relation to property B was that this property was purchased after separation, in the name of Ms Rounds with the assistance of $50,000 received from her Mother (with a total deposit of $80,000 being received by Ms Rounds from her mother into her account). Additional funds were contributed by Ms Rounds mother to her account thereafter of $16,000.

It was argued by Mr Bisset that this property should be included in the pool.

It was argued by Ms Rounds, that this property was being held on trust for her Mother as were all the funds that were in Ms Rounds bank account and that that account was operated by her Mother and held for the benefit of her Mother.

The arrangement alleged by Ms Rounds was that property B was purchased in Ms Rounds name with a mortgage secured over it but that Ms Rounds Mother was always intended to be the beneficial owner of that property and that Ms Rounds Mother would live in that property and contribute towards the mortgage repayments and all outlays for the property.

The evidence at Trial supported that Ms Rounds was responsible for the mortgage secured over the property but that her mother made ‘rental repayments’ which were less than the mortgage and Ms Rounds mother covered all outgoings for the property. Ms Rounds declared the property as hers on her tax returns and in doing so obtained a negative gearing advantage in respect of her income.

Evidence produced at Trial by Ms Rounds, as to why she needed to buy the property in her name and not her mother’s was inconclusive. Despite her saying she held property B on trust for her Mother, she gave evidence that there was no trust arrangement in place and there was no evidence of the existence of a trust on her financial statement.

Evidence produced at Trial by Ms Round’s Mother was that she was unable to purchase a home in her sole name, as the lending institutions would not take her on, due to her age and income. Documentary evidence from Centrelink revealed that Ms Round’s Mother was receiving a pension and rent assistance on the basis that she held less than $3,000 in various bank accounts. There was no evidence to support a conclusion that Ms Rounds Mother had declared to Centrelink that she is the beneficial owner of property B or of the funds held in her daughter’s bank account.

There was no evidence produced by Ms Rounds as to why she did not advise Centrelink that she held a beneficial interest in the property, she she did not advice centrelink she had dispersed $80,000 to her daughter to purchase the property, why she declared $230 per week payments as rental when she was the beneficial owner of the property, why centrelink records showed that she did not own a home, shares her accommodation with the owner of the home and pays board of $200 per week and why the position she presented to centrelink, the bank and the ATO was completely at odds with the position that she and M Rounds presented to the Court.

The Court did not accept the submission that the property held in Ms Rounds name was held on trust for her mother and expressed concerns about Ms Rounds and her mother colluding to arrange her finances in a manner to as to provide her with the best possible centrelink benefit.

His Honour went on to say:

“The respondent in the course of cross examination clearly stated that the concept that the property was held on trust by her for her mother was “a term which my lawyer suggested.” Any concept in the Respondent’s mind that the property was held on trust appears to be something that was formulated in the course of these proceedings.”

There has been a course of conduct undertaken by the respondent and her mother in respect of her interactions with amongst other things, Bank A bank, the Australian Taxation office and Centrelink, that is consistent with teh view that the Respondent is in fact the owner of Property B and the Bank A bank account.” 

If I am wrong on this, then there are grave concerns that the Respondent and her mother have colluded in providing wrong information to Bank A bank, the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink.” 

The Court therefore preferred the position that Ms Rounds was the owner of property B, having been gifted a significant sum by her mother and in return the mother was able to occupy the property for nominal rent together with payment of the outgoings.

The contributions of the parties were said to significantly favour of Mr Bisset and the Court determined that the contributions were assessed at 73% to Mr Bisset and 27% to Ms Rounds.

An adjustment of 10% was made in favour of Ms Rounds due her lower income earning capacity.

The overall adjustment was 63% to Mr Bisset and 37% to Ms Rounds.

Given that property B said to be held ‘on trust’ for Ms Round’s Mother, was included in the property pool, having regard to the assets sought to be retained by each party, in order to achieve the above division, a cash payment of $156,000 was required to be made by Ms Rounds to Mr Bisset.

Courtney’s Cases: What can we learn? 

It is very important to make full disclosure Centrelink, the ATO and all other entities you associate with in respect of the ownership of your assets and when you enter a de facto relationship with another person.

Failure to do so could result in the Court making a report to Centrelink and the ATO about your conduct which may result in a significant liability being incurred by you. It could also mean that negative inferences are made by a Court about the ownership of assets or the nature of your relationship, which could have a significant negative impact on your property settlement entitlements.

Contact us 

If you have separated and need advice in relation to the division of property between you and your ex partner, and the impact of any declarations you have made to Centrelink, our family law expert Courtney Barton can help you.

Contact us on 3465 9332 to book a reduced rate consultation with one of our family law experts to have a confidential discussion about your individual circumstances.

 

Filed Under: News

Barton Family Law

Primary Sidebar

Online Enquiry

I would like to book a reduced rate initial consultation with you

Footer

Areas of Practice

  • Child Custody Lawyers
  • Divorce Property Settlement Lawyers
  • Fixed Fee Divorce Lawyers
  • Domestic Violence Lawyer – DVO Domestic Violence Order
  • Superannuation Splitting & Advice Lawyers
  • Fixed Fee Consent Orders Brisbane
  • Mediation Representation
  • Child Relocation Family Lawyers
  • Child Abduction Family Lawyers
  • Child Support Lawyers
  • Family Law Spousal Maintenance
  • Child Adoption Lawyer & Advice
  • Family Court Process
  • Family Mediation Services Brisbane
  • Binding Financial Agreements

Common Questions & Concerns

  • How to spend more time with your children
  • What is substantial and significant time 
  • Parental Alienation in Family Court Disputes – Pt 1
  • Parental Alienation in Family Court Disputes – Pt 2 
  • Top 10 things people do wrong in child custody matters
  • What age can a child decide where they live?
  • Admissibility of recordings in family law cases 
  • Am I a parent?
  • I’m Not a parent. Can I apply for a parenting order? 
  • I want sole custody
  • Can I go to court without doing mediation first?
  • Can parenting orders be changed? 
  • Relocation of Children
  • Interim relocation of children cases
  • Unilateral relocation of children
  • International travel with children after separation
  • My ex is breaching a parenting order. What do I do? 
  • When is supervised time ordered?
  • Is a child’s changed views enough to change a parenting order? 
  • Interim parenting orders – why can’t the judge make the orders I want? 
  • When can you change your child’s surname?
  • What is substantial & significant time?
  • Domestic violence order applications – boosting prospects of success
  • What to do and what not to do when you separate
  • Why you should formalise your property settlement;
  • Is Domestic violence relevant in a property settlement?
  • 6 secrets revealed to protect your assets 
  • 10 tips to protect your assets
  • 6 things you must know before hiring a family lawyer
  • Your Duty of Disclosure 
  • Spousal Maintenance – supporting your ex partner after separation 
  • Initial contribution of assets in a long relationship 
  • What is the just and equitable requirement?
  • Chancellor & Mccoy – no order after 27 yr relationship
  • Am I in a de facto relationship?
  • My ex is selling assets. What can I do?
  • Property acquired after separation – how is it treated? 
  • When are future inheritances they taken into account?
  • Failure to disclose an asset can derail consent orders 
  • Consequences of Defaulting on property orders 
  • Varying property orders 
  • Who stays in the home after separation?
  • Can the court order someone to leave the house – ouster orders 
  • Money lent from parents – gift or loan?
  • The impact of centrelink fraud on a property settlement 
  • CGT rollover relief for transfers of property pursuant to family court orders 
  • Costs orders 
  • Divorce – what you need to know
  • Going back to work after divorce 
  • Step-Parent awarded interim custody over parent 

If you are a law student, graduate or early career lawyer, reach out to Courtney who is also a law Coach. Courtney’s law coaching services are invaluable to young lawyers. Courtney’s one on one law coaching services will help you to achieve massive success in your legal career.  Check out Courtney’s website for the Thriving Young Lawyer to learn more about Courtney’s law coaching services.

Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.

Contact Us

Head office

  • Address: 4/996 Anzac Avenue, Petrie QLD 4501
  • Parking: Underground parking available at the back of the building via O’Loan Street
  • Phone: 3465 9332
  • Email: george.finn@bartonfamilylaw.com.au
  • Website: Petrie Family Lawyers

Northside – Chermside Office

  • Address: 822 Gympie Road, Chermside QLD 4032
  • Phone: 3465 9332
  • Email: george.finn@bartonfamilylaw.com.au
  • Website: Chermside Family Lawyers

Aspley Office

  • Address: Aspley Hypermarket, 59 Albany Creek Road, Aspley QLD 4034
  • Phone: 3465 9332
  • Email: tenayah.miano@bartonfamilylaw.com.au
  • Website: Aspley Family Lawyers

Toowong Office

  • Address: Toowong Tower Level 5, Toowong Tower, 9 Sherwood Road, Toowong, QLD 4066
  • Phone: 3465 9332
  • Email: tenayah.miano@bartonfamilylaw.com.au
  • Website: Toowong Family Lawyers

Copyright © 2020 · Privacy Policy
Created and hosted by LEAP · Log in