Adamczak & Adamczak

Case [2022] FedCFamC1A 31


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Adamczak & Adamczak [2022] FedCFamC1A 31  

Appeal from: Adamczak & Adamczak [2021] NSWSC 851
Appeal number(s): EAA 88 of 2021
File number(s): Supreme Court NSW 2019/00051555
Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, AUSTIN & SCHONELL JJ
Date of judgment: 4 March 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales – Appeal against orders holding a property on trust for the appellant and a costs order in favour of the appellant – Issue estoppel – Anshun estoppel – Procedural fairness – No error established – Appeal dismissed.  
Legislation: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 7(5), 11(1)(c)
Cases cited:

Clayton v Bant (2020) 385 ALR 41; [2020] HCA 44

Eberstaller v Poulos (2014) 87 NSWLR 394; [2014] NSWCA 211

Kalinec & Kalinec [2021] FedCFamC1A 44

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81

McKean v Page (1999) FLC 92-853; [1999] FamCA 577

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45

Number of paragraphs: 15
Date of hearing: 1 March 2022
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms Reid with Ms Ingenito
Solicitor for the Appellant: Andrew Lee Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Harding SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: StevensVuaran Lawyers

ORDERS

EAA 88 of 2021
Supreme Court NSW 2019/00051555

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR ADAMCZAK

Appellant

AND:

MS ADAMCZAK

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, AUSTIN & SCHONELL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MARCH 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in an Appeal filed on 15 December 2021 is allowed.

2.The appeal is dismissed.

3.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $29,183.59.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE, AUSTIN & SCHONELL JJ:

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is an appeal against a declaration and other orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 3 August 2021 in proceedings between Ms Adamczak (“the respondent”) and Mr Adamczak (“the appellant”).

  2. The primary judge declared that the appellant held the legal interest in a property in Suburb J (“the Suburb J property”) on trust for the respondent as to one half interest. Subsequent orders were made charging the appellant’s interest in the land with a…

Continue reading Adamczak & Adamczak

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Adamczak & Adamczak [2022] FedCFamC1A 31
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1A 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adamczak & Adamczak involves an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the appellant, Mr Adamczak, sought to overturn orders made by the lower court. The primary dispute centred on a property that was held on trust for the appellant, along with a costs order in his favour. The respondent, Ms Adamczak, contested the lower court’s decisions, leading to an appeal. The legal issues in the case included the application of issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, as well as questions regarding procedural fairness.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction, presided over the appeal. The court examined whether the lower court had erred in its application of issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, and whether the appellant had been afforded procedural fairness. The court concluded that no errors had been established in the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court found that the lower court’s reasoning and application of the law were sound, and that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for the appeal to succeed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, which were fixed at $29,183.59. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adherence to established legal principles and the requirement for a clear demonstration of error before an appellate court will overturn a lower court’s decision. The final orders of the court confirm the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs on the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

EAA 88 of 2021

Supreme Court NSW 2019/00051555

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR ADAMCZAK

Appellant

AND:

MS ADAMCZAK

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, AUSTIN & SCHONELL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MARCH 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 15 December 2021 is allowed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $29,183.59.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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.