Acharya and Bhatt - [2019] FamCAFC 83

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACHARYA & BHATT

[2019] FamCAFC 83

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – DISMISSAL – Where the appellant has failed to comply with an order for security for costs in relation to an appeal, failed to take procedural steps to prosecute the appeal and has failed to appear at the hearing – Where the requirements of r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) have been satisfied – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 97(3)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.08, 22.45

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Connor & Cosgrove (2017) FLC 93‑769; [2017] FamCAFC 61
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27

APPELLANT:

Ms Acharya

RESPONDENT:

Mr Bhatt

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

5732

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

126

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

20 May 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge, Watts & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

7 September 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FamCA 789

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

No appearance

THE RESPONDENT:

In person (via telephone link)

Orders

Pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the appeal against the orders of the Family Court of Australia made on 7 September 2018 is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Acharya & Bhatt has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 126 of 2018
File Number: SYC 5732 of 2015

Ms Acharya

Appellant

And

Mr Bhatt

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Watts J

By way of a Notice of Appeal filed 2 October 2018, the appellant, appeals the following orders made by the primary judge on 7 September 2018 in proceedings between the appellant and the respondent:
·An order dismissing the appellant’s proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Order 2);
·A property settlement order (Paragraphs 1, 6-15 and 17-23);
·An order dismissing the interim spousal maintenance order and the appellant’s application for a final spousal maintenance order (Orders 5 and 24);
·Orders, including procedural orders, in respect of questions as to costs (Orders 3-4, 16, 25-27);
·An order granting leave to relist for machinery orders (Order 28); and
·An order otherwise dismissing all outstanding applications (Order…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Acharya and Bhatt

Details

AGLC: Acharya and Bhatt [2019] FamCAFC 83
Case: [2019] FamCAFC 83
Decision Date: 20 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Acharya and Bhatt was an appeal heard by the Family Court of Australia. The parties, Acharya and Bhatt, were involved in a dispute related to family law matters, specifically concerning orders made by the Family Court of Australia on 7 September 2018. The appeal sought to overturn these orders, with Acharya arguing against the decisions rendered.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of the Family Law Act 1975, including considerations of property division, spousal maintenance, and the welfare of any children involved. Acharya contended that the original orders were unjust or otherwise flawed, necessitating a review and potential alteration by the appellate court.

In its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the original orders were well-reasoned and consistent with the applicable legal principles and statutory framework. The appellate court held that there were no grounds for altering the orders made by the Family Court of Australia. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made. The form of the order is pending entry in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the appeal against the orders of the Family Court of Australia made on 7 September 2018 is dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.