Please enter your search query in the form below to search judgments of the Family Court of Australia

using
Number of results per page:
Austlii logo

Judgments search is powered by Austlii


Note: Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish or distribute a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a Judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case. A breach of the section is a criminal offence. The section also sets out certain limited defences to criminal liability. An example is where the Court has expressly authorised the publication.

  • Grange & Grange and Ors [2020] FamCAFC 63

    26 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Where only the appellant filed written submissions – Whether the first respondent should pay the appellant’s costs – Where there is no marked disparity in the financial position of the appellant and the first respondent – Where the appellant was wholly successful – Where it was only late in the course of the appeal that submissions were made that led to success – Where in all the circumstances there should be no order as to costs – Costs certificates granted to the appellant and the first respondent for both the appeal and any rehearing.

  • Walpole & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 65

    25 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Appeal against order for the return of children removed from their country of habitual residence – Where the appellant is the children’s primary carer – Grave risk – Family violence – Where requesting parent has significant criminal history – Requesting parent permanently banned from Australia – Application to adduce further evidence pertaining to requesting parent’s criminal history and family violence allowed by consent – Appellant given leave to raise new defence on appeal – Grave risk of intolerable situation – Risk not manageable through conditions – Discretion of the Central Authority to refuse to act on a request made by a left behind parent – Model Litigant Guidelines – State or Agency should not require a person to prove something that the State/Agency knows to be true – Appeal allowed – Application by Central Authority dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Ferrick & Ferrick [2020] FamCAFC 61

    25 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant mother appeals from final orders allocating equal shared parental responsibility to the parties and providing for the child to spend substantial time with the father – Where the mother also appeals from the primary judge’s refusal or failure to make orders for which she applied – Where the primary judge did not err in applying s 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the orders made by the primary judge stipulating the time for the child to spend with the father were consistent with the evidence – Where findings were open – Where the primary judge appropriately considered factors pursuant to s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where sufficient reasons were provided – Where no material error demonstrated – Where the primary judge’s failure to grant or dismiss the mother’s application for an injunction regulating communication between the parties is rectified by an order dismissing all outstanding applications in the parenting dispute under s 94AAA(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where no merit in the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the appellant mother appeals from final property orders dividing the parties’ property and splitting the father’s superannuation interests – Where multiple grounds of appeal conceal the essential points – Where the primary judge failed to correctly apply s 79(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge did not determine the identity and value of the parties’ contested assets and liabilities – Where there are inadequate reasons and errors of law which caused the exercise of discretion to miscarry – Where the primary judge made few findings to resolve the factual disputes over the parties’ contributions – Where the primary judge erred in the treatment of the mother’s spousal maintenance application – Where the primary judge erred by failing to make an intended order to dismiss the spousal maintenance application – Where the parties’ applications under Part VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are remitted for re-hearing – Appeal allowed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – COSTS CERTIFICATES – Where the appeal succeeded on errors of law – Where parties are granted costs certificates for the appeal and the rehearing.

  • Mallory & Mallory [2020] FamCAFC 62

    24 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – COSTS – Where the appellant and the respondent had failed to comply with earlier procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar in relation to filing and serving their schedule of costs prior to the appeal hearing – Written submissions as to the issue of costs – Where the Full Court made orders providing for the respondent to file and serve an itemised schedule of costs and for the appellant to file and serve any objecting submissions in response for determination in chambers – Where the respondent sought an order for costs to be made on a party/party basis quantified in the amount of $17,482 – Where the appellant objected to any costs order being made against him – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s party/party costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed amount within six months of these orders.

  • Cimorelli & Wenlack [2020] FamCAFC 58

    23 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from interim parenting orders providing for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the children and for them to live with him – Where the primary judge ordered that the children spend supervised time with the mother – Where the grounds of appeal are premised on the primary judge making erroneous findings and attributing weight to untested expert evidence – Where the appeal is resisted by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the appealed orders were premised on the provisional finding that the mother posed a risk of harm to the children – Where the primary judge did not make any error of fact or law – Where the appeal lacks merit – Appeal dismissed – Costs applications made by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer are reserved for determination in chambers.

  • Finch & Finch [2020] FamCAFC 60

    20 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether the wife was denied procedural fairness – Excessive judicial intervention – Where judicial interventions were unwarranted – Where the primary judge expressed a “preliminary view” – Where counsel were unable to properly conduct cross-examination – Procedural unfairness – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted – Costs certificates ordered.

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Application dismissed – Where both parties sought costs certificates if the appeal succeeded – Costs certificates granted to both parties for the appeal and the rehearing of the matter.

  • Long & Peng [2020] FamCAFC 56

    13 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Findings of fact – Where the evidence proffered by both parties was compromised and deficient – Uncorroborated testimony of party subject to adverse credit findings – Failure to give full disclosure – Application in an appeal to adduce further evidence – Further evidence could not establish error – Application in an Appeal dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

  • Spencer & Spencer [2020] FamCAFC 55

    13 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal against order dismissing application for costs – Where the primary judge in the costs application was not the same judge who determined the property proceedings out of which the costs application arose – Where the primary judge found there were no circumstances justifying a costs order being made – Where it was not demonstrated that there was apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge, that insufficient weight was placed on the findings of the property trial judge, that insufficient weight was given to an alleged pattern of deception by the respondent and his lawyers, or that the primary judge was unaware of relevant conduct in the earlier phases of the proceedings – Where all grounds of appeal are unmeritorious – Appeal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Appeal against order summarily dismissing an application brought pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where it was not demonstrated that there was apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge, that the primary judge made procedural errors that denied the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice, that the primary judge made errors of law and errors of fact, or that the primary judge failed to take into account a number of alleged relevant considerations ––Where all grounds of appeal are unmeritorious – Appeal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant sought to adduce further evidence – Evidence of no relevance to the proper determination of the appeal – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the respondent sought an extension of time to file and serve his summary of argument and list of authorities – Application granted.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent sought a costs order against the appellant – Where the appellant has been wholly unsuccessful in both appeals – Where the appellant’s conduct has caused the respondent to incur additional costs – Where impecuniosity is not of itself a barrier to an order for costs – Costs order granted in favour of the respondent against the appellant.

  • Sikouska & Bekinski [2020] FamCAFC 59

    10 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the documents filed by the applicant are incompetent and do not identify error by the Magistrate – Where there is no satisfactory reason given for the failure to file a Notice of Appeal within the prescribed timeframe – Where there is no utility in granting an extension of time because once the appeal came on for hearing it would be dismissed on the basis of lack of competent grounds of appeal – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondent made an oral application for costs – Where there is no basis for an order for costs to be made – Oral application dismissed.

  • Hunt & Atkins and Ors [2020] FamCAFC 57

    12 Mar 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the applicant husband seeks to expedite the respondent wife’s appeal against final property and spousal maintenance orders – Where matter has lengthy history – Where applicant has age related difficulties – Where expedition is variously supported or unopposed – Application granted.

  • Britt & Britt [2020] FamCAFC 51

    12 Mar 2020

    APPEAL – PROPERTY – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – Reasonable explanation for delay – Where the proposed appeal has very limited prospects of success – Where the applicant declined to accede to a condition which would have provided a just outcome in which the application for an extension of time could be granted – Application dismissed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

  • Ahsan & Ahsan [2020] FamCAFC 50

    12 Mar 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Application for reinstatement – Where an application for reinstatement of an appeal against property and parenting orders was dismissed – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Where the application for reinstatement was wholly unsuccessful and as a result the appeal also failed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for reinstatement and the appeal, other than the costs which have already been paid – Costs to be assessed, if not agreed.

  • Millson & Halbert [2020] FamCAFC 54

    11 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – SECURITY FOR COSTS OF APPEALS – Where the mother has filed an appeal against final parenting orders made in the Family Court of Australia – Where the father seeks an order that the mother provide security for his costs of the appeal – Where the mother opposes the application and asserts she is impecunious – Where an order for security for costs would likely stifle the appeal – Where it cannot be said that the proposed appeal is devoid of merit – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO ISSUE SUBPOENA – Where the father seeks leave to issue a subpoena to the New South Wales Police –– Application allowed.

  • Mursell & Rean [2020] FamCAFC 53

    11 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the applicant was one week late in filing the Notice of Appeal – Where the delay is sufficiently explained by reason of a misapprehension regarding the last date for filing – Where there is sufficient merit in the appeal such that granting an extension of time would not be futile – Where the applicant would suffer an injustice if leave is not granted – time extended.

  • Melville & Melville [2020] FamCAFC 52

    10 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – TRANSCRIPT – Where the father seeks an order that he need not provide the entirety of the transcript for his appeal – Where the father was informed he could be permitted to listen to the audio of the hearing to identify the extracts of transcript he would require – Where such order was made with the consent of all parties.

  • Emmert & Quarto [2020] FamCAFC 48

    10 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions as to the issue of costs – Where the appellant failed to file written costs submissions – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the respondent sought costs – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in a fixed amount.

  • Jabbar & Gade [2020] FamCAFC 49

    09 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE – Application for leave pursuant to s 102QE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Application for leave to file an Application in an Appeal – Applicant granted leave to file the Application in an Appeal insofar as it relates to the transcript and digital appeal book – Applicant refused leave to file the Application in an Appeal insofar as it relates to the production of the respondent’s mobile phone.

  • Vissell and Ors & Vissell and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 41

    25 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT – Where the applicants failed to file a Draft Appeal Index as directed – Where the appeal was deemed abandoned – Where the applicants seek reinstatement of their appeal – Where the applicants seek to appeal against the order of a judge which dismissed an appeal against the decision of a registrar – Where leave was granted to the applicants to appeal against the judge’s order – Where there may be some merit in the proposed appeal – Where there would be some prejudice to the respondents if the application was allowed – Application to reinstate granted.

  • Sanders & Sanders [2020] FamCAFC 42

    27 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against final property settlement orders – Contributions – Inadequate reasons – Error of law – Conceded appeal – Where the error is agreed by the parties – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted – Costs certificates ordered for both parties in relation to both the appeal and the rehearing of the matter.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – ADDENDUM – Discussion of r 16.05 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – Amending reasons for judgment.

  • Benard & Eames and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 47

    05 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where an order for indemnity costs was made against the second respondent’s solicitor personally – Where the second respondent brought child support proceedings against the first respondent – Where the second respondent’s solicitor appeals from the making of the personal costs order – Where the appellant sought to argue there were competing authorities to justify the application being brought – Where a subsequent Full Court held there were no such competing authorities and the argument of the appellant was untenable and the application was an abuse of process – Where the appellant had brought similar applications on behalf of other parties with no success – Where the evidence revealed that the application was brought on the advice of the appellant in circumstances where the appellant would have well known that the application had no chance of success, and should have advised the second respondent accordingly – Where the appellant continued to run the case and did not withdraw – Appeal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where indemnity costs were sought against the appellant – Where the appellant ought to have known the appeal had no chance of success – Where it is not accepted the appellant had an arguable case – Costs ordered in a fixed sum on an indemnity basis.

  • Jarmin & Elstone [2020] FamCAFC 46

    05 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals against orders for the child to live with the father and spend time with her on alternate weekends – Whether the primary judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in permitting the re-litigation of issues where there had been final parenting orders previously made by consent – Where the primary judge found sufficient changed circumstances to satisfy the rule in Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where the primary judge found that the mother’s parenting capacity was limited – Where the primary judge’s findings were open on the evidence – Where there is no error in the primary judge’s attribution of weight on the various expert reports – No error established – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Asher & Wilkinson [2020] FamCAFC 44

    05 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Relocation – Competing proposals – Where the mother and the child were ordered to live in Western Australia and geographical restrictions were imposed on where they could live in Western Australia – Where the primary judge erred by concentrating on what his Honour perceived to be the practicalities of where the parents should reside and not on the parties’ competing proposals – Discussion of the Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 inference – Where the mother’s fall-back position was incorrectly elevated to a proposal – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – No order as to costs – Costs certificates granted to each of the parties for the appeal and the rehearing of the matter.

  • Attaway & Balloch [2020] FamCAFC 43

    05 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Appeal allowed – Error of law – Costs certificates ordered for both parties in relation to the appeal.

  • Ormonde & Marley and Ors [2020] FamCAFC 45

    03 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the trial judge made interim property orders providing for the sale of the former matrimonial home – Where there are third parties with interests in the property – Where the trial judge’s calculations were in error – Where such error is not capable of remedy by the slip rule – Where the trial judge acted upon wrong principle when making interim property orders – Where the respondent concedes the appeal – Where the appeal is to be allowed – Where costs certificates are granted.

  • El Rashidy & El Rashidy and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 40

    27 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal and professional privilege – Waiver – Whether the primary judge was correct to overrule the husband’s claim for legal professional privilege over documents produced to the Court by his lawyers and accountants – Leave to appeal allowed – Inadequate reasons – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was wholly successful – Wife to pay the husband’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum – Payment of costs delayed until final determination of the property settlement proceedings – Financial disparity of the parties – No order as to the costs of the second respondent.

  • Verbeck & Sabberton (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 39

    21 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the order made on 30 January 2020 should have been to dismiss the appeal on the application filed by the respondent – Where the grounds of appeal in the alternative Notice of Appeal filed by the applicant are incompetent and fail to identify any appealable error by the Magistrate – Where the appeal has no prospect of success – Where this is the second attempt by the applicant to raise competent grounds of appeal and both attempts have failed – Where a careful reading of the Magistrate’s reasons for judgment and other documents which were before his Honour confirm that his Honour made no appealable error – Notice of Appeal dismissed.

  • Verbeck & Sabberton [2020] FamCAFC 38

    21 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant did not appear – Where the day before the hearing the applicant sought that the hearing be delayed and be heard at a later time – Where the applicant was well aware of this hearing and the request could have been made earlier and may have been able to be accommodated – Where the hearing proceeded in the applicant’s absence – Order made.

  • Somers & Ettridge [2020] FamCAFC 37

    21 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Where the appellant opposes the application but did not raise any issues about how the amount was calculated and no challenge was made to the amount – Where there are circumstances that justify an order for costs being made – Where there is a clear basis for indemnity costs to be awarded – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent in the sum as sought by her.

  • Mabb & Mabb and Anor [2020] FamCAFC 18

    31 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Contributions – Where the husband’s parents transferred a property to the parties jointly – Where the husband challenges her Honour’s finding that the property was intended by his parents to be gifted to both parties – Where the husband contends that property was to be gifted solely to him – Where the benefit of the gift is dependent on the intention of the husband’s parents at the time of transfer – Where the evidentiary onus lies on both parties to establish facts to support their contentions – Where the transfer of land to the parties jointly is a strong indicator of intention – Where the husband’s challenges are not made out – Where her Honour’s conclusion was open on the evidence – Where the husband challenges her Honour’s finding that the husband’s conduct in deliberately refusing to accept offers of sale had a direct financial effect on the parties – Where there is no error in her Honour’s finding or approach – Appeal dismissed.

  • Meadows & Meadows (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 36

    18 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – Application in an appeal – Review of Appeal Registrar’s decision – Where the Appeal Registrar rejected the applicant's draft Notice of Appeal – Where the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficiently comprehensible to enable identification of issues to be raised on appeal – Where Application allowed and Notice of Appeal to be filed.

  • Meadows & Meadows [2020] FamCAFC 35

    18 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF APPEAL REGISTRAR'S DECISION – Where the Appeal Registrar rejected the applicant's Summary of Argument for non-compliance with the Practice Directions – Where the applicant was ordered to comply with the Practice Direction and file a Summary of Argument limited to fifteen pages – Application dismissed.

  • Naparus & Frankham [2020] FamCAFC 32

    18 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – PARENTING – Procedural Fairness – Where the parties’ mental health was in issue – Where the primary judge relied on the report of a psychiatrist determining the father was of sound mental health – Where that report was only given to the mother on the morning of the trial – Where the mother objected to the primary judge’s receipt of that report – Where that objection was not determined – Where the mother then sought to cross examine that psychiatrist but was denied the opportunity – Consideration of a litigant’s right to cross examine a witness – Where it cannot be said that such cross examination could not have materially affected the outcome – Where it is unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds of appeal – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

    APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal succeeded on a point of law – Where both parties sought costs certificates – Where the circumstances warrant a costs certificate for each party.

  • Warriner & Warriner [2020] FamCAFC 33

    14 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the primary judge determined adjustments as 52.5 per cent to the wife and 47.5 per cent to the husband – Where the wife argues that the adjustment was not reflected in the superannuation orders – Where the wife sought to add back property into the property pool – Discretion correctly exercised by the primary judge – Conclusion drawn by the primary judge not plainly wrong – Parties agreed that the wife should receive an additional sum of $63,146.88 from the joint superannuation fund – Appeal allowed in part – Discretion re exercised.

    APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful bar the adjustment in the superannuation split –Wife to pay the husband’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum.

  • Chan & Chih [2020] FamCAFC 31

    14 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals against final property settlement orders – Where the primary judge categorised the property into two pools – Where the primary judge erred in his understanding of the husband’s position in relation to the s 75(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) adjustment – Where the primary judge failed to determine what, if any, adjustment there should be pursuant to s 75(2) – Where there was insufficient reasons for making a five per cent adjustment in the wife’s favour – Where the primary judge did not take into account all relevant s 75(2) factors – Where the five per cent adjustment for s 75(2) factors was outside the reasonable range – Appeal allowed – Where the discretion is re-exercised – Where there should be no adjustment pursuant to s 75(2) – Where the orders are varied to allow for no s 75(2) adjustment – Costs certificates issued.

  • Bailard & Rahman [2020] FamCAFC 34

    13 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – No appearance by the applicant or the respondent – Where the applicant’s solicitor on record was not instructed by the applicant to act on this application – Where the applicant was not aware of the hearing and the respondent has not been served – Hearing adjourned to a fixed date.

  • Gallanders & Gallanders [2020] FamCAFC 29

    10 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the applicant has had a litigation guardian appointed to represent her – Where the applicant made application for the removal of the litigation guardian which application was dismissed – Where once a litigation guardian has been appointed only the litigation guardian may commence an application – Where the application before this Court has not been commenced by the litigation guardian and this Court cannot receive it – Application dismissed.

  • Phillips & Hansford [2020] FamCAFC 28

    12 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – COSTS – Written submissions on the issue of costs – Indemnity costs awarded to the mother – Exceptional case where the payment of costs assessed only at scale would not be appropriate or just – Where the father is in a better financial position than the mother – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where considerable expense would have been spared if the father had accepted the mother’s written offer of settlement – Where the father should not have prosecuted the appeal – Father to pay the mother’s costs of the appeal and this application for costs in a fixed sum.

  • Tong & Niem [2020] FamCAFC 27

    12 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – DISQUALIFICATION – APPREHENDED BIAS – Cumulative effect of remarks – Comments considered in the context of the overall tone of the proceedings – Adequacy of reasons – Waiver of right to object – More than two months passed before application made – Hypothetical observer – Appeal dismissed.

    COSTS – Appellant wholly unsuccessful – Where the appellant expended significant sums on legal fees – Any discomfort occasioned by a costs order is a circumstance of the appellant’s own making – Costs order made.

  • Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25

    07 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether the primary judge failed to undertake a holistic assessment of contributions – Whether the primary judge’s findings did not reflect the wife’s contributions to the properties – Where the primary judge did not adopt, as the wife contends, a purely mathematical calculation as a starting point to assess the impact of subsequent contributions – Where it is not possible to conclude that without the wife’s assistance the husband’s properties would have become financially unviable – Where the primary judge did not err by failing to prescribe interest under the orders – Where the primary judge provided adequate reasons to conclude that the contribution based entitlements were 85 per cent to the husband and 15 per cent to the wife – Appeal dismissed – Wife to pay the husband’s costs.

  • Warnett & Amerson [2020] FamCAFC 24

    07 Feb 2020

    APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of the transcript – Where the father seeks an order that the Court provide the transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge at its own expense – Where the circumstances are not such that the interests of justice require the Court to provide the transcript – Where parts of the transcript are held by the Court and will be forwarded to the parties – Where the father does not have the means to purchase the rest of the transcript – Where the procedural orders for the preparation of the appeal will be amended so that the father will be permitted to provide such portions of the transcript as he can obtain – Application dismissed.