Family Court of Australia
ADAIR & AdAIR
[2019] FamCAFC 70
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the primary judge made property settlement orders providing for three parcels of real property exclusively held by the husband to be transferred to the wife – Where the three parcels of real property were the parties’ only alienable assets – Where the appellant husband was unable to demonstrate he was not afforded procedural fairness – Where various findings made by the primary judge were open on the evidence – Where the primary judge gave sufficient reasons for the findings made – Where the Full Court considers admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge’s consideration of findings made by another judge in relation to family violence was valid – Where the primary judge made no discretionary error in applying Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 to property settlement orders – Where the primary judge’s adjustments made pursuant to ss 75(2) and 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were just and equitable – Where no appealable error established – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where no merit in appeal – Where the appellant abandoned grounds of appeal before or during the appeal – Where the remaining grounds of appeal were wholly unsuccessful – Where the appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed amount.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 91, 93, 135, 136, 190
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZM, 69ZT, 69ZX, 75(2), 79(4)
Clauson and Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595; [1995] FamCA 10
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Farmer and Bramley (2000) FLC 93-060; [2000] FamCA 1615
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27
National Companies & Securities Commission v News Corporation Limited (1984) 156 CLR 296; [2012] HCA 29
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17
RCB v Honourable Justice Forrest (2012) 247 CLR 304; [2012] HCA 47
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141; [1986] HCA 54
Appellant:
Mr Adair
Respondent:
Ms Adair
File Number:
PAC
3305
of
2013
Appeal Number:
EA
60
of
2018
DATE DELIVERED:
29 April 2019
Place Delivered:
Newcastle
Place Heard:
Sydney
Judgment of:
Strickland, Ryan & Austin JJ
Hearing date:
1 March 2019
Lower court jurisdiction:
Family Court of Australia
lower court judgment date:
18 April 2018
LOWER COURT MNC:
REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL FOR THE Appellant:
Mr Bennett
SOLICITOR FOR THE Appellant:
Adam Jones Solicitor
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Mr Bainbridge, Bainbridge Legal
Orders
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of…
Continue reading Adair & Adair
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Adair & Adair [2019] FamCAFC 70
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 70
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider whether the husband had been denied procedural fairness, whether the findings made by the primary judge were supported by the evidence, and whether there had been any error in the application of legal principles. The court also examined the admissibility of evidence under relevant legislation and the validity of the primary judge's consideration of findings made by another judge in relation to family violence. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the primary judge had made any discretionary errors in applying established legal principles to the property settlement orders, and whether the adjustments made by the primary judge were just and equitable.
The Full Court found that the husband had not demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness, that various findings made by the primary judge were open on the evidence, and that the primary judge's reasons for the findings made were sufficient. The court considered that the admissibility of evidence had been properly assessed under the relevant legislation, and that the primary judge's consideration of findings related to family violence was valid. The court also held that the primary judge had not made any discretionary errors in applying the relevant legal principles to the property settlement orders, and that the adjustments made were just and equitable. As a result, the court found no appealable error and dismissed the appeal.
The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $15,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders. This form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court's records.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $15,000 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
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.