Agambar & Agambar

In the case of Agambar & Agambar, the father appeals the orders made by the Family Court, which the mother resists. Mr B was joined in the appeal but chose not to participate and submit to the Court’s decision. The father filed an Application in Appeal seeking permission to adduce as evidence in the appeal the affidavit of Mr Terrence John Tummon sworn on 21 June 2021. The mother did not contest the lateness of the application, and the court overlooked the anomaly of not seeking leave to rely on the affidavit of Mr C sworn on 9 August 2021. The father's application to present further evidence was denied, as the evidence did not fulfil the purpose intended to buttress the complaint within Ground 3 of the appeal. Ground 3 complained of an alleged legal error committed by the primary judge in favouring Mr B rather than the father as the recipient of limited parental responsibility for the children to prosecute their tort claims against the mother. The court found the father's appeal unsuccessful, and in the event of dismissal, the mother sought costs against the father.

The legal issues in this case pertain to the father's appeal against the orders made by the Family Court, specifically concerning the allocation of parental responsibility for the children to prosecute their tort claims against the mother. The father's application to adduce further evidence in the form of an affidavit was denied, as it did not fulfil the purpose intended to buttress the complaint within Ground 3 of the appeal. The court considered the father's appeal unsuccessful and found that the mother should be awarded party/party costs of the appeal, which will be fixed at $10,000, at the lower end of the range she claimed.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented in the appeal, which did not fulfil the purpose intended to buttress the complaint within Ground 3 of the appeal. The father's complaint about the primary judge's decision to favour Mr B rather than the father as the recipient of limited parental responsibility for the children to prosecute their tort claims against the mother was deemed unsuccessful. As the appeal was wholly unsuccessful, and the father's financial circumstances were not so modest as to dissuade him from bringing the appeal and risking the significant costs he incurred with his own lawyers, the father should meet the mother's party/party costs of the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed, and in the event of dismissal, the father should meet the mother's party/party costs of the appeal, which will be fixed at $10,000, at the lower end of the range she claimed. The father's financial circumstances were not so modest as to dissuade him from bringing the appeal and risking the significant costs he incurred with his own lawyers.