The Petitioner claimed the both
of them owned and contributed to the manial properties of the fami family.
She said she
and the Respondent jointly own the nakamal (Kava bar), two
service buses and a house. She said thuse (which is t is their
matrimonial
home)[1]
at Ohlen area was under mortgage with the VNPF (now transferred to AMU).
The mortgageement want was entered into between
VNPF and herself and the
Respondent. She said that she has guaranteed her VNPF contrib (in
excess of VT100,000) to secure
the loan from VNPF. Sso said that they they
ey
verbally agreed that their jointly owned bus and kava nakamal business would
also pay for the loan on the property. She that the Respondent
ant
acknowledge the arrangementement and agreed to run the
bus and kava business
while she continue to work. The loan repayment wetil ttil the house
was burnt down sometime in
19in 1996 when they stopped loan repayment (see
Annexure “C). Sho sait at the time when when the house burnt down, the
Respondent was in Tongoa.  She said she has struggledggled by lf for
two years to get the insurance company to agree
to rebuild the house. Afp; After
ouse was was rebuilt, theyed a joint account with Westpac bank from
bus and kavd kava
business proceeds and continued to repay the loan.
ass="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
">
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The Petitioner that since
1998 the Respondent was telling her that he would no longer assist in
n
repayment of the
loan. She aaid that in 1998, she, she made a repayment of
VT400,000 towards the loan repayment.   amount was money paid
paider by
the Vanuatu Government as compensation for the civil servant strike in 1993
3
(see Annexure “X”). In early
the ndent stoppedopped depositing funds
from the buse bus and kava nakamal businesses into the joint account with Westpac
k. She said that the Respondent opened an account in his personal name
at NatioNational Bank of Vanuatu and up to date
deposited money from the bus and
nakamal kava businesses into this account.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The Petitioner said that since
they wererated in August 2000, and despite the Respondent having
g
control and manage
the bus and nakamal kava businesses there has been no
payment towards the repayment of loan for the matrimonial home (see Annexure
“E”).
The Petitioner also said that
herself and the Respondent ed into an agreement with Weth Westpac Bank to
loan for bus registration
number 3636 (see Annexure “F”).
also said that profitrofit from the bus was agreed by herself and the
Respondent would be used to pay of its loan with
AGC Finance at Westpac and
the outstanding of the loan for ttrimonial home (see Annexurnexure “G”).
She said that they ahey also owned another bus registration number 8885,
which was to be used as service bus, and is
no longer for this purpose
but for the Respondent personal purposes.
The Petitioner said that in
March 2001, the Respt purchased a new bus registration number 4296 and
is is registered
in his personal name. She said that she believe the funds
used to purchase the bus are from their matrimonial businesses being
the bus
and kava nakamal. She saidbus wrchased afterafter various letters from
her lawyer advising the commercial banksbanks
and Asco Motors against lending and purchase of the bus because of the pending matrimonial case before the
Supreme CourtCourt.
The Respondent gave oral
vidence beside his four affidavits filed on the 5 October 2000, 21 May
2001, 28 May 2May 2001, and
29 May 2001.
The Reent said that the
Petitioner left their matrimonial home on the 3 of August 2000 afte after a
dispute over pornographic
photos not on the 17 August 2000 as Petitioner
stated. He said the Petitioner reported him to the Police about those photos
and he went to the Police Station and at the police station the police told
them that they had those photos too. At
the end of that day, the Respondent
said that the Petitioner did not return and had not told him reason why she
did not
come back to their matrimonial home.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The Respondent said that he did
not aware that he had assaulted the Peter on 17 August 2000 or hadr had
threatened to
kill her. n>
He denied that the two children
feared of him and had ray from their home as alleged by the
Petitioner.  He that
he dropped off thef the two children at school on the
morning of 4 August 2000. He shat went to pick them them up in the
afternoon and found out that the Petitioner wentchool and had pick up
the two children and took them with her to
stay with her at her sister’s
home until now. He aaid that since he took took the two children stay with
her she never
allowed them to see or even visit him as their fatheran>
The Respondent said that during
the marriage, the Petitioner travelled within Vanuatu and overseas to attend
workshops
and conferences as part of her work. During those time tft
two children have been cared and looked after by the Respondent
their father
for about two to three months.
He denied that the Petitioner
had made two attempts to co their matrimonial home. He saat he
rememrememremembered two
occasions only, one when the she passed him at their nakamal
while he was drinking kava with some other women, which at that
time she
swore at them. The second time she brought a relative with him to pick up
her cloths. At that timeas at his
home home in his island, Tongoa. He also
denied he hahe had ever assaulted, threatened, forced or denied access to
the
Petitioner from their matrimonial home.
The Respt said that since
the Petitioner left, he continues to run and manage the bus and nakd nakamal
business and use
proceeds from those businesses to repay the loan for their
matrimonial home and maintain the house.
The Respondent said tha
previous court order of 1996 had ordered that Petitioner to manage the
nakamalkamal business and
she had caused a big loss to the business, which he had
to start it again.
He said that in respect of land
title 11/OH24/040, he had it from the money from the bus and kava
businesses,sses, which
he started. He said thatnakamal busineusiness he started
it with kava supplied to him from by his relative from his home island.
He
said th has operaoperated and manahe kava nakamal business and earned
VT700,000 within thin six months. He then
used the VT700,0 l to loan the first
us registration number 8885. It was there that that thet they later
purchased a
second bus registration 3636 still througoan.
He included the name of the
Petitioner during registration of the land because the Petitioner’s family
had forced him
to include her name in the registration. He alsd tha a after hter he purchased the land, himself and the Petitioner had managed
to
obtain a loan in the name of the Petitioner to build a house on the ground.
He said te hadantee the loan woan with
tith the bus and nakamal kava
businesses and the land itself. He alsd that although the the Pener
has agreed to repay
the loan as she had permanent job at that time, she
nev never did. He said that he has beeing the loan up to the time the
house was burnt down.down. After the house was rebuilt, he said the Petitioner
should havaid the loan, which she never
did until she moved out from
the house in August 2000.&000. He denied that he never help to repay the loan as
alleged
by the Petitioner. As the perso guaranteed thed the loan, he said
he would be liablthe Petitioner fails to repay the loan.
The Respondent said that Anita
Michell their daughter has just passed to Onesua yterian College this
year 2001.
He said that he had one mone month for the Petitioner to come
back home but she decided not to and waited for the divorce
case, which she
filed with the Court.
He denied the some items and
ttal expenses that Petitioner claimed she had spent on the ethe education
and maintenance
of the two children from period August 2000 to December
2000. He said that they are not justifiable and had no proof.
The Respondent denied that he
ver makes any attempt to maintain the two children since Auce August 2000 up
until now. Hd
he made attempts but thut the Petitioner refused or
influenced the children from getting any assistance from the Respondent.
The two witnesses of the Respondent Mr. Joelly Seresere and Mr. Albert Kalo said that on 3 January
when the Mthe Magistrate
Court ordered that the 2 children be at liberty to see
both father and mother, the Respondent after the court order outside
the
courtroom talked to Anita. Anita was happtalk to his his father. They
said that Petitionerioner when saw Anita talking
to his father came and pulled
Anita from him and said that he had no right and that he does not force.
Mr. Kalo said that
afte Pfte Petitioner pulled out Anit Anita from the
Respondent, the Respondent told the Petitioner’s counsel to see what her
clied.
FINDING AS TO FACT
I find as matter of fact that
Petitioner has custody of and maintain the twodren since August 2000 up
up
to date.
I find also Respondent hast has not assisted the Petitioner with
the maintenance of the children during the period. The expenses
incurred the Petitioner are mainly school fees and re expefor the educationation
of the two children. Ian and
Anitaell told the the Court that they wanted
to stay withr mother (the Petitioner), er), but however, Ian said that he
wanted access to his father (the Respondent).
I find also that tter of
fact, the matrimonial businesses and properties are have been started and
d
purchased after
the parties got married and lived together as husband and
wife. It alsar from the fact that that those matrimonial businesses
and
properties are jointly owned by the parties and that both their names
appeared in the legal documents in respect
of thosinesses and the
matrimatrimonial home.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
I find that there is hatred
between the parties. It is clear that bo them tant to have custody tody of
the two children.
p class="MsoNoMsoNormaNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
It is common ground that the
Petitioner was dismissed from her pab but is applying for one.&one. It is
also common ground
that the Respondent since August 2000 up to date, operate
and manage the matrimonial businesses solely and reside in the matrimonial
home.
SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner
The Petitioner said that their
matrimonial is a jointly owned property. The counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that
Petitioner contributed more than the Respondent did towards
payment of the loan on the matrimonial home. The evidence pport
this
is
contention is that in 1999 the Petitioner had paid VT400,000 towards the
loan (see Annexure “X”) to the Petitioner’s
affidavit tendered as “P3” under
paragraph 8). The Petitioner accepted that leasehold title 11/OH24/024 is
registered
in both the names of herself and the Respondent (see Annexure “C”
to the Petitioner’s Affidavit tendered as exhibit “P1”).
The Petitio also submisubmitted that Vanuatu National Provident Fund (VNPF) allowed to
advance to the Petitioner and the
Respondent initially because the
Petitioner’s contribution at VNPFgreater than VT100,000. &nb. Toort
this, counsel fsel
for the Petitioner submitted that at that time VNPF put out a
scheme that anyone member whose contribution was greater than
VT100,000
would be eligible to a housing loan and it was on that basis that the
Petitioner and the Respondent were able
to obtain a loan for the matrimonial
home at VNPF.
Ipect of the loan
repayment, the counsel for the submitted that it is evidence from boom both the
Petitioner and Respondent’s
evidence that money from matrimonial business
(being the kava nakamal and bus businesses) would be used to repay the
loan. The counsel forPetitioner oner referred to Annexure “A” of the
Respondent’s affidavit tendered as exhibit “R1” on page
1 under heading
“Business” to support his submission. He said that he Respo admi admitted
that the service bus and kava
nakamal business were a source of revenue to
assist them with school fees and payment of the loan on thrimonial home
where they lived.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bott">
pan lang="EN-GB" -GB" stylestyle="font-size: 12.0pt">The Petitioner’s
counsel
submitted that the Petitioner and the children shbe allowed back into
the matrimonial home on the basis
that they have been restricted access to
the matrimonial home for some 8 months and in addition on the basis that on
the balance of evidence, the Court should be satisfied that she contributed
more towards repayment of the loan than the Respondent.
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" stylegin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
In respect of the Kava Nakamal
Business, ounsel for the Petitioner submitted that contrary to the
he
Respondent’s assertions,
the kava nakamal business is a jointly owned
matrimonial business. The counsel submitted thac on cross-examination, the
Respondent admitted that the Petitioner did help with the kava nakamal in
terms of selling kava and depositing money into
the Bank. The Petitioner’s
idence also show that when when she went on tour on Epi and Tongoa during her
work, she bought
kava for nakamal. Beside tthe Petitioner pror provided
VT100,000 to the Respondent’s brother on Tongoa for him to provide
kava for
the nakamalness. Further, the counsel for ehe Petitioner submitted
that, letter from the Mthe Minister of Home
Affairs (tendered as “P3”)
supports the Petitioner’s contention that the kava nakamal business is
jointly owned between the Petitioner and the Respondent.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that three (3) buses registration numbers 8885, 3636 and the new
one 4296 4296 are
matrimonial properties. Toort this contention, the, the
counsel for the Petitioner referred the Court to Annexure “A” of the
Respondent’s affi tendered as “R1”, where in the Respondent admits that
they have a bus service and nand nakamal business
which is a source of income to
them in assisting them to pay for the loan and the house. This is also
firmed ined in Respondent’s
evidence in chief, which he stated that the first
bus was bought from a joint account in the names of the Petitioner and the
Respondent at Westpac. The Respt also admitted tted tted that the Petitioner
went together with him to withdraw the VT700,000
to purchase the first bus.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the incomes from the bus and
nakamal business
were used to purchase the other buses including the new
one. The Petitioner’s co also slso submitted that tset Purchase
Agreemeneement, which was executed by the Petitioner and the Respondent, is
evidence supporting the contenti the Petitioner
that the buses are
matrimonial properroperties.
The Petitioner’s counsel
submitted that the Respondent opened an account in his personal name at
National Bank of Vanuatu
and deposited all proceeds from the bus and nakamal
businesses. It was from those funds that the Respondent purchased the
new
bus registration number 4296.
<
The counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that contents of matrimonial home as set out in affidavit tendered
as “P4” are
personal properties purchased by the Petitioner by her own
money. The Petitioner agreed for the items to be shared equally.
In respect of the custody of
the children, the counsel for the Petitioner submittat the Petitioner
is is the natural
mother of the children and naturally the children should be
with their mother. To add to this submission, the children have
been with
their mother since separation in August 2000. They are happy witir
mother and that there is no evidence
that the mother has mistreated the
children.
The counsel for the Petir
submitted that since August 2000, the Petitioner has cared and maintained
the the children
to date without and assistance from the Respondent. &nThe
expenses incurrncurred by the Petitioner to maintain the children
are set in
affidavit tendered as “P3”. The co for the Petitioner sner submitted that
the Respondent knows the schools
Ian and Anita goes to but did not approach
those schools to enquire about payment of their school fees. Thnfirms
the
Petitiotitioner’s evidence that the Respondent failed to assist her to
maintain the children.
The Petitioner’s counsel also
subm that Petitioner gave evidence that since she was dismissedissed from
her job, she has
conducted fundraising to maintain the children and her
family also assist her in maintaining the children. She said she woul
continontinue to do fundraising to assist her to maintain the children. She also
gave nce thce that she is seeking job and
hopeful to get a job i near
future.
In respect of the Respondent’s
allegation that Petitioner broke and stole money in a locked suitcase in the
bedroom of
the matrimonial home, the Petitioner denied it. The counsel for
RespoRespondent submitted that there is no proof of this allegation
and that
the Respondent on cross-examination admitted that he did not see the
Pener taking the money from the suitcase.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
In respect of the incident at
the Court on 3/1/01, the counsel for the Peter submitted that she
denied version of
the events as deposed by the Respondent and his two
witnesses. She sait she accepts the Cthe Court ruling but children should
not be forced against the liberty as ruled by the Court.
Resnt
>
The counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Respondent has never wanted to divorce the Petitioner.
He said that
the Petitioner made a choice to divorce him, which the Court
ruled accordingly. The counsel for tspondent dent submitted that
it was the
fault of the Petitioner, which caused the Respondent to commit adultery.
e Resnt’s counsel submisubmitted that
this fault was the lack of respect,
love and afnd affection by the Petitioner to the Respt and the unreasonably
walked
out of the matrimonial home by the Petitioner and livedlived out for a
period over one (1) months.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Respondent seek custody of the children Ian and Anita
despite that fact
that the children have not lived with him as their father
since August 2000 up to date.
class="MsoNormal"rmal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The counor the Respondent
submitted the Respondent gave evidence that when they still live tove together,
he cared and
maintained the children as much as the Petitioner and when the
Petitioner travelled out because of her job in the past, he
cared and looked
after the children alone. The Respondent denny form form of cruelty on the
children by the Respondent
as alleged by the Petitioner. I cross-examination of t of the Petitioner, it was shown that the allegations are
noe. Io
shows that that the Rese Respondent’s treatment in form of
discipline by way of whipping the children is less strict andn than
the
Petitioner’s and her treatments on the children.
The counsel for the Respondent
submitted that it ot true that the children ran away to the Petitioner
from their
matrimonial home. Thitioner went to their scir school and picked
them up after they were dropped off at school by the Respondent
and took
them with her to her sister’s Since the Respondent took the two
children andn and stayed with her at her sister’s
house she directly and
indirectly allow and refuse the children to visit and see the Respondent.
To support this contention,
the counsel for the Respondent submitted last
year 2000 in September, the Petitioner travelled to South Africa and his
Chief had asked the twodren to stay and care for by the Respondent but
the Pthe Petitioner has refused this. Thesel for
the Respondent dent also
submitted that on another occasion on 3 January 2001 at the Courthouse, the
Petitioner pulled
Anita out from the Reent while the Respondent was
talking to her as her faer father. The evidences of Mr. Sereaere and Mr.
Kalo in
the witness box have confirmed this.
The counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Petitioner is cruel by influencing the children from
their father the
Respondent and not wanting any form of assistance from the
Respondent to the children.
The counsel for the Respondent
submitted that Court aware from the statements of the two children that both
children want
to stay with the Petitioner however, Ian indicated that he
wanted accesses to his father the Respondent. Iw of this, the counsel
el
for the Respondent it would only be proper for the Court to grant custody of
Ian Michellhe Respondent. In addition,
thesel for thor the Respondent
submitted that Ian iIan is the heir to his father’s rights whether in custom or
the businesses
or properties. The Petit’s counsel said taid that at the end
of the day, the family business is operated for the benefit of
the children
especially Ian as the eldest son of the family. The counsel fe
titionerioner submittemitted the children were
under the pressure of the Petitioner
to say that they prefer to stay with hetitioner). The Respondent’s
ounsel nsel submitted
that Ian Mitchell would be happyhappy to stay with his father
the Respondent as his natural father if the Court grant custody
of him to
his father.
In respect of the bus service
busi the counsel for the Respondent submitted that it is under nder the
control and management
of the Respondent. The Rdent he sthe started rted
the business in 1988 and opposes the Petitioner’s claim that she also owns
and manages theness.; The counsel submitted that the Petitioner have
agreed that the first bus bus was pwas purchased
from funds from the kava nakamal
business. Thereno evidence before thre the Court, which opposes that it was
the Respondent
who started and managed the bus service business when it
first started to this day. The Respondent’s counsel submitted that
it would
be unfair and unjust to grant the Petitioner ownership or management of the
bus business because it is the Respondent
who had worked hard to start and
make the bus business grow while the Petitioner at that time spent her wages
at her
own disposal as she was then earned a monthly wages. Further, t Respondent sent said that the bus service is the only form of
employment and
source of living for him in town.
LAW
ass="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Custody
It has been a well-established principle of law in cases where custody is in dispute; the welfare of the
children iren is a
paramount consideration when Court decide who should have
custody of the children (referred to as “Welfare Principle”). In
doing so,
the always have regard to the fact that children need access to both parents
as both have equal right to custody
of the children.
Court has adopted this
principle and must determine custody of the two children base base on the
principle. It is fental
that Court, art, although do not ignore what the
parents wants, where practicable it must not ignore what is good fo
children. There are geneuestions of s of consideration, which the Court
must consider when determining custody of the
children base on the welfare
principle. They areollows:
>
(i) &nsp; & &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; &nbbp;&nnbsp;
Which parent went will best look after the child or children?
(ii) &nnbsp; &nnbsp; &nbp; &nbp;
parent will bill best be able to make the child happy in a difficult
situation?
(iii) &nnbsp;; &nsp; &nsp; &&nbp;;
/ Which pach parent went will cope best with running a siparenily?
(iv) &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;&
Which pich parent will provide access without conflict?
span "EN-GB" style=tyle="font"font-size: 12.0pt">
In addition, the Court will
also consider:
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(i) &bsp; ; &nbbp;&nnbsp;&nsp; &nbp; &nbssp; &&nsp;;&nsp;
the agesend sex of the children,
(ii) & &nsp; &nbssp;
pan>the chil children’sren’s feelings and wishes,
(ii">(iii) & p;&nssp;&nsp; &nsp; ;&nbpp;
/ tpan>the financial cial means of the parties,
: 1">
(pt">(iv) ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs; &nb p;
/s the conduct auct and behaviour of the parties, and
n lan-GB" ="font-size: 12.0 12.0pt">(pt">(v) & p;&nssp;&nsp; &nsp; ;&nbpp; &n sp;
the host hostility of the parties.
In divorce case such as this
one, I must say that the Court aware that the children have been through a
painful and difficult
time in their life.
p class="MsoNoMsoNormayle="n-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
In this case the two (2)
children namen about 15 years of age and Anita who is about 12 years of s of
age. The two (2)
childrenbeyondeyond tender age. They are to decide
a and know what is best for them. <
Maintenance
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
In Vanuatu, the Maintenance of
Family Act;
Matrimonial Causes Act;
and Maintenance of Children Act
are statutory laws regulating maintenance in divorce and separation cases
where the issue of maintenance is disputed.
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
It is a general rule that both
parents are equally responsible for thetenance of the children of n of the
marriage. Maintenance
usually granted by way of discretion of the Court. In
gra maintenance tnce there are general consideration to be considered
by the
Court.
&nb"> &nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;&&nbp;; &nsp; tpe need of the wife wife and the children and
(ii">(ii) ;&nspp;&nssp; p; &nbp; &nbp;
In this case, tsue of
maintenance is subject to the ruling on the issue of matrimonial properties.
es.
Matrimonial Propertiesn>
Matrimonial properties is
defined as all property acquired, bought, accumulated, won or gained after
marriage by both
husband and wife together, or either the husband or the
wife.
Separate property is all property other than the matrimonial property and
includes most property that a spouse owned
before marriage; gifts that one
spouse received during marriage, and inherited propeenerally
acknowledgededged to be
the inheritance of one spouse.
In this case, the Respondent
said that althoughPetitioner has her name appeared in the documents in
respect of the
kava nakamal and bus service businesses and the leasehold
matrimonial property title 11/OH24/040, she has not contributed financially
to the purchase of those businesses and property.
In the case of Pettit .v.
Petti [1969] UKHL 5; (1970) AC 777, wife had purchased a cottage (matrimonial
home), and certificate of title was in her name only. usband
significantlyantly
improved the property, using his own labour and money. The
ties divorced. Hus. Husband claimed an equitable interest in the
house arguing
that i matrimonial property ad shad should be shared even though his name
was not on the title. The House
of Lords did not give husband a share.
However, latee of Gissing .v. Gissing [1970] UKHL 3; (1971) AC 886,
accepted and developed the new common law principle of constructive trust
enabling a party to a share of matrimonial
property in the following
circumstances:
(i) &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;& &n than>the coup couple have shared the financintribs.
(ii) &nbssp; &nbssp; &nbp;
;
Thare hen been a common intention to acquire the property on behalf
of both and commtentis beeresseimpli words or
behaviour.
/p>
<
In this case, it has been shown
in evidence that both parties’ names appeared in the docs relating to
the mate matrimonial
businesses (kava nakamal and bus service businesses) and the
matrimonial home. Agh the Petitioner may havy have contributed
less or may
have not involved initially in the starting of those businesses, ino
doubt that she has some interest in
the shares of those properties.
pan>
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
The Petitioner have applied and
successfully granted divorce to her marriage with tspondent. The
P Petitisincesince
separated from the Respondent in August 2000 kept the two
children with her until today.
ORDERS OF THE COURT
The Court issues the following
Orderpan>
I. &nbbsp; &nsp; &nbUp; CY,TODRE
AND CAND CONTROL OF THE CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE
<
>
A
- &nnbsp;; Csptodystody, care care and control of the child IAN COLLIN ALEX (now known as
IAN NOMPWAT TEVLONGONEI)
MICHELL (15 years).
(1) &nbs; p;&nssp;   Than>That a jt a joint custody is granted to both the Petitioner/mother and the
Respondent/father inect the chan CoAlex ll.
(2) & &nsp; &nbssp;
(3) &bsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; &nbbsp;
Than>That the Respondent/father will have reasonable access to his son Ian
Collin Alex Michell during weekends, public holidays
or school holidays or
any time as arranged by both the Petitioner/mother and the
Respondent/father.
B - &nbustody, care and
cont control of the child ANITA MICHELL (12 years)
>
(1) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;
sp;
That a joint custody is granted to both the Petitioner/mother and the
Respondent/father in respect to the child Anita Michellan>
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(2) nbsp; p;&nbbp; &nbp; &nbssp;
1">
(3)&n;"> & &nsp; &nbssp;
II. &bsp; ;&nbpp; &&nsp;; &nbp; &nbp;
MAINTENANCE OF THE THE CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE
<
A - &nbbsp; Msp; Maintenance of
the c children IAN MICHELL and ANITA MICHELL
(1) &nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;&&nbp;; &nsp;
That esp Rdentndent/father is ordered t to the Petitioner a lump
sum of 100,000 Vatu x 2 = 200,000 Vatu per year for the maie
maintenance of the 2
children: Ian Michell and Anita Ml untey boach 18 h 18 yearsyears of
of
age.
(2) &nbs; p;&nssp;   Than>That thet the Respondent/father may pay the lump sum ordered by
instalments.
(3)  &nbssp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp;
span>That thet the OrderOrder of maintenance of the children may be
amended/varied/extended
by agreement of both parties or by order of the
Courthe evhat aeach of the children reaches 18 s 18 yearsyears and and
he/she attends an educational institute or university or otherwise, or still
needs to be maintained.
(4) &nbp; &nnbp;&&nbp;;&nbpp; &nsp;   Both the Peti Petitioner/mother and Respondent/father are jointly and
equally responsible for the payment of the schools fees
of the children: Ian
Michell and Anita Ml. Thmentsin equal parts (5ts (50:50)0:50) for for the 2
children.
III. ;&nspp;&nssp; p;
MAan>MATRIMONIAL PROPERTIES
A. ;&nspp;&nssp; p; &nbp; &nbp;
n>Laad Leasehold Titl Title 11/OH24/040 upon which the dng ho imoniuse) ilt<
(1) &nbssp;&nnsp;&&nsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp;
Tpan>That the Respondent/Father, Alick Michell, shall vacae
trimohome with his personal belongings with immediate effect.
>
(2) nbsp; p; ; &nbbp; &nbp; &nbs;
(3) &nsp; &&nbp;;&nbpp; &nnsp; &nbp;
s the Land LeaseLeasehold Title 11/OH24/040 be registered in the names
of the Petiti Mrs.en Mi and ld int for2
children
of the marrimarriage.
B. p;&nbbsp; Tsp; The Nake Nakamal Business
class="MsoNormal" style="mae="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
p clasoNorstyl style="yle="text-text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(1) &bsp; ;&nbpp; &&nsp;; &nbp; &nbp;
Than the Nakamal bual business being operated on the Land Title
11/OH24/040 at Ohlen APort- Efat parthe dwg hou (Matrimonial
Home); andspan>
(2)ot;"> &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;
s That the Nakamal business be now controlled and managed by the
Petitioner.
(3) nbsp; p; &nbp; &nbssp;
pan>That thet the proceproceeds of the Kava Nakamal until the judgment be shared
between
the Petitioner and the Respondent: 1/3 and 2/3 respectively.
C. &nbbsp;& bsp;icervuse B/spa
(1) &nnsp;&&nsp;;
sp Tpan>That the Respondent will have the control and management of the three
(3) buses Registration Nos.8885, 3636 and 4296.
(2)&t;"> &nnsp;&&nsp;;
sp Tpan>That the buses Registration Nos.8885, 3636 and 4296 be registered in
the sole name of the Respondent.
D. &nbbsp; &nsp; Householm itepa
clasoNormal" s"text-indent: -36.0pt; marginargin-left-left: 72.: 72.0pt; 0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(1) &bsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; &nbbsp;
Than>That the Petitioner will keep for her own use her personal items as
identified in her avit (it P4pan><
(2) &nbssp; &nbssp; &nbp;
That othor property items be shared equally between the Peter
nd Reent.
">
IV. &nbbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp;
p;
STAY ANDRINTERIM ORDERS
classBodyTexdyTexdyText2" st2" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(1) &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
Thatr I,eII, III, III be stayed pending the final Decree Nisi to dissthe mge be the ionerthe Rdent which is to
be issueissued
on d on 26 Ju26 July 20ly 2001.span>
(2) p;&nssp; p; &nbp; &nbp;
<
DATED at PORT-VILA, this 11
DAY of JULY, 20Y, 2001
ass="Mss="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
BY THE COURT
LUNABEK Vincent
Chief Jief Justice
The property leasehold title
is 11/OH24/040 Matrimonial home
class="MsoFootnoteText">
See Annexure “F” to the
Petitioner’s affidavit tendered as “P3”.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/71.html
