Appeal from: Harrell & Hancock
Case
•
[2021] FamCA 132
•15 July 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Appeal from: Harrell & Hancock [2021] FamCA 132
[2021] FamCA 132
15 July 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Appeal Division of the Family Court of Australia, Mr Harrell was the applicant in an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Family Court on 5 February 2021. The application in an appeal was filed on 1 March 2021.
The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether to grant Mr Harrell leave to appeal from an order made under section 102QB(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the Court to consider the provisions of section 102QE of the Act, which governs applications for leave to bring fresh proceedings under Part VII of the Act, and specifically whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for such leave.
The Court reasoned that the grant of leave to appeal from an order made under section 102QB(2) should be decided by the Full Court, consistent with section 94AA(1) of the Act. It found that Mr Harrell had not satisfied the requirements of section 102QE(3) of the Act. Crucially, the Court determined that the applicant had not discharged his onus of demonstrating that the proposed appeal was not vexatious, and that the application was pursued without reasonable grounds.
Consequently, the Court ordered that leave to appeal be refused and the application in an appeal be dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether to grant Mr Harrell leave to appeal from an order made under section 102QB(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the Court to consider the provisions of section 102QE of the Act, which governs applications for leave to bring fresh proceedings under Part VII of the Act, and specifically whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for such leave.
The Court reasoned that the grant of leave to appeal from an order made under section 102QB(2) should be decided by the Full Court, consistent with section 94AA(1) of the Act. It found that Mr Harrell had not satisfied the requirements of section 102QE(3) of the Act. Crucially, the Court determined that the applicant had not discharged his onus of demonstrating that the proposed appeal was not vexatious, and that the application was pursued without reasonable grounds.
Consequently, the Court ordered that leave to appeal be refused and the application in an appeal be dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Scott (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1A 239
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Harrell
[2021] FamCAFC 119
Scott (No 4)
[2023] FedCFamC1A 239
Scott (No 3)
[2023] FedCFamC1A 227
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
2
Harrell & Hancock-Harrell
[2019] FamCAFC 177
Harrell and Hancock-Harrell
[2020] FamCA 583