ADCOCK & ADCOCK - [2014] FamCAFC 138

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADCOCK & ADCOCK

[2014] FamCAFC 138

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Consent orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs Certificate.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Proceedings Costs Act (1981)

B & B (Costs Certificates) (2007) FLC 93-339
Cramer v Davis (1997) 72 ALJR 146

APPELLANT:

Mr Adcock

RESPONDENT:

Ms Adcock

FILE NUMBER:

AYC

118

2011

APPEAL NUMBER:

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

29 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Murphy & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

22 March 2013

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2013] FMCAfam 248

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Lee

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Jeremy Naumann of Walsh & Blair Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Christie

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Tacita Murell of Farrell Lusher Solicitors

Orders

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT:

That the appeal be allowed.
By way of additional Order to those titled “Amended Pursuant to the Slip Rule” dated 23 March 2013 but made on 29 May 2013, that within 7 days of the date of these Orders the Wife pay the Husband the additional sum of $112,742.71.

AND THE COURT ORDERS:

The appellant be granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in relation to the appeal.
The respondent be granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of

s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent in respect of the costs incurred by her in relation to the appeal.

THE COURT NOTES:

The Wife will discontinue her costs application in the Federal Circuit Court.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 45 of 2013
File Number: AYC 118 of 2011

Mr Adcock

Appellant

and

Ms Adcock

Respondent

Ex Tempore

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AINSLIE-WALLACE J

By Notice of Appeal filed on 18 April 2013 the husband appeals against property settlement orders made by Judge Neville on 22 March 2013. The wife opposed the appeal and sought to maintain the judge’s orders.
Procedural directions were made for the preparation of the appeal and the husband, in compliance with those directions prepared and served the appeal books. Both parties filed summaries of argument and lists of authorities in the appeal.
The appeal was fixed for hearing by…

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 ADCOCK & ADCOCK

Details

AGLC: ADCOCK & ADCOCK [2014] FamCAFC 138
Case: [2014] FamCAFC 138
Decision Date: 29 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adcock & Adcock involved an appeal from a decision in the Family Court of Australia regarding consent orders and costs. The primary dispute centred around the enforcement of consent orders and the allocation of costs between the parties, the husband and the wife.

The court was tasked with determining whether the consent orders should be upheld, specifically regarding the payment of a sum of money by the wife to the husband. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties for the appeal, including whether the wife should discontinue her costs application in the Federal Circuit Court.

In its reasoning, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that the wife pay the husband an additional sum of money. The court found it appropriate to issue a costs certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for both parties, indicating that the Attorney-General should authorise payments for the costs incurred by both the appellant and the respondent. The court also noted that the wife would discontinue her costs application in the Federal Circuit Court.

As a result, the final orders mandated that the wife pay the husband an additional sum within seven days, and granted both parties a costs certificate. Additionally, the wife was to discontinue her costs application in the Federal Circuit Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT:

That the appeal be allowed.

By way of additional Order to those titled “Amended Pursuant to the Slip Rule” dated 23 March 2013 but made on 29 May 2013, that within 7 days of the date of these Orders the Wife pay the Husband the additional sum of $112,742.71.

AND THE COURT ORDERS:

The appellant be granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in relation to the appeal.

The respondent be granted a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of

s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent in respect of the costs incurred by her in relation to the appeal.

THE COURT NOTES:

The Wife will discontinue her costs application in the Federal Circuit Court.

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.