Abdoo and Abdoo

Case [2011] FamCAFC 234


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABDOO & ABDOO [2011] FamCAFC 234

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – where the husband appealed against the Federal Magistrate’s order that the proceeds of sale from one of the properties owned by the parties be divided $238,000 to the wife and the balance to the husband – where the Federal Magistrate preferred the evidence of the wife and eldest daughter over the evidence of the husband and his current wife as to the identification and value of the parties’ assets – where the Federal Magistrate found that the husband had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his assets – where the husband sought on appeal an order that the proceeds of sale be divided with the husband to receive $238,000 and the wife to receive the remaining balance – where the husband was unable to persuade the Court that the Federal Magistrate erred in his findings – appeal dismissed.   

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – where it was not apparent on the face of all the documents in respect of which leave was sought what relevance they had to the appeal or the issues in dispute before the Federal Magistrate – where the Court considered very few if any of the documents would be admissible as evidence and was not persuaded that the documents would render erroneous the decision of the Federal Magistrate – application dismissed.     

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 93A(2)
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Mims & Green and Green (2008) FLC 93-359
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others (1999) 160 ALR 588
Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338
APPELLANT: Mr Abdoo
RESPONDENT: Ms Abdoo
FILE NUMBER: MLC 4987 of 2007
APPEAL NUMBER: SA 86 of 2010
DATE DELIVERED:

14 December 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J
HEARING DATE: 28 April 2011
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 13 October 2010
LOWER COURT MNC: [2010] FMCAfam 1117

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: In person
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

  1. The Application in a Case filed by the husband on 28 March 2011 be dismissed.

  2. The appeal be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Abdoo v Abdoo is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE  

Appeal Number: SA 86 of 2010
File Number: MLC 4987 of 2007

Mr Abdoo

Appellant

And

Ms Abdoo

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction  

  1. This is an appeal by Mr Abdoo (“the husband’) against property settlement orders made by Federal Magistrate Roberts on 13 October 2010 in proceedings between the husband and Ms Abdoo (“the wife”).

  2. In summary, the Federal Magistrate ordered that the wife receive the sum of $238,000 from the proceeds of sale of the parties’ property in Melbourne suburb and…

Continue reading Abdoo and Abdoo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Abdoo and Abdoo [2011] FamCAFC 234
Case
[2011] FamCAFC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The husband and wife were before the court in a dispute regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement reached in earlier proceedings. The wife had sought an order for the husband to pay her legal costs from a proceeding brought by the wife against a third party. The husband opposed the application on the basis that it was inconsistent with the terms of a settlement agreement. The court of appeal was asked to determine whether the application for costs was inconsistent with the settlement agreement. The primary issue before the court was whether the wife's application for costs was inconsistent with the settlement agreement. The court held that the settlement agreement was ambiguous and therefore the court was required to determine the meaning of the agreement by considering the surrounding circumstances. The court found that the wife's application for costs was consistent with the settlement agreement and therefore dismissed the husband's appeal and his application in the lower court. The court ordered that the application in a case filed by the husband be dismissed and that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in a Case filed by the husband on 28 March 2011 be dismissed.

2.

The appeal be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.