New case- when going to court, remember to tell the truth

New case- when going to court, remember to tell the truth

In the recent case of Ashman and Ashman, Federal Magistrate Baumann sets out a well thought out judgment in a property settlement when not all was as it seemed.

The judgment starts: “When the Applicant wife Gladys Ashman and the Respondent husband Frank Ashman commenced cohabitation in June 1992, the husband gave all the appearance of a financially comfortable businessman. The wife, a widow and prior resident of the United States of America, came to Australia to pursue her relationship with the husband, having met him in 1991 initially whilst travelling.”

What the husband had done was to say in these proceedings that he had come into the marriage with a significant initial contribution of $264,000, but had forgotten about what he had told the Family Court during the previous property settlement with his former wife.

His Honour stated:

The value of the husband’s business interests at the time, as claimed now, are in stark contrast to what he swore the position to be in earlier Court proceedings conducted in the Family Court of Australia in 1993. Exhibit 3 comprises copies of an Application and Statement of Financial Circumstances containing information sworn to as accurate by the husband on 19 July 1993 and 5 August 1993 respectively. The contents were properly put to the husband in cross examination and his reaction showed significant surprise and uncertainty. Put shortly, what he deposed as the extent of assets at the time of his first property settlement is quite different from what he deposes to… now.

It would appear that what he actually owned in 1993 was a car worth $55,000 and a new business created out of the “embers” of the old, and presumably worth very little.

It pays to be honest!

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Breaching parenting orders: what you can do

When parenting orders are not being followed, it is understandable to feel frustrated, powerless and eager to take immediate action. A parent may miss time with their children, be denied communication, or find that arrangements which were meant to provide certainty are simply not working in practice. However, taking an ex-partner back to court is… Read More »Breaching parenting orders: what you can do

Sri Lanka surrogacy: what Australian intended parents must know

Sri Lanka is an often overlooked overseas surrogacy destination for Australians, particularly for people with a genuine connection to the country. It can offer comparatively low IVF and legal costs, prompt surrogate matching and a practical pathway to parentage recognition. However, it also comes with strict eligibility requirements and important Australian legal, citizenship and criminal… Read More »Sri Lanka surrogacy: what Australian intended parents must know

Overseas surrogacy births are 4 times that of domestic surrogacy births

When talking to colleagues, judges and policymakers, it is assumed that the norm of Australian surrogacy is that of domestic surrogacy births. However, as the most recent figures demonstrate, yet again, domestic surrogacy births are the exception. The norm remains that of Australian children being born through surrogacy overseas. That norm and the exception have… Read More »Overseas surrogacy births are 4 times that of domestic surrogacy births

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board