Arkin and Blasberg (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 782

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARKIN & BLASBERG (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 782

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – proposed interveners seeking to intervene with one business day left before the commencement of the trial – the issues the proposed interveners wising to agitate are already before the court – application too late – no explanation given for late application – likely consequence of granting application being the derailment of case through discovery – application refused – proposed interveners ordered to pay costs of the respondent.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 79, 92(3), 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r 6.05

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

APPLICANT:

Ms Arkin

RESPONDENT:

Mr Blasberg

INTERVENOR:

Ms W Arkin & Mr Z Arkin

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

4182

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

24 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Wilson J

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr A Strum One of Her Majesty's Counsel with Mr A Barbayannis of counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr G Dickson One of Her Majesty's Counsel with Mr P O'Shannessy of Senior Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Glezer Lanteri & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR:

Mr P Fary

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Orders

Leave is granted to the proposed intervener to file an amended application in a case dated 23 October 2019.
The proposed intervener’s amended application in the application in a case filed in court on 24 October 2019 is dismissed.
The proposed intervener is to pay the costs of and incidental to the appearance of both Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel for the respondent husband on 24 October 2019.«FCA_LD221»

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4182 of 2016

Ms Arkin

Applicant

And

Mr Blasberg

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Following a fairly detailed debate during the course of an adjournment application held on 11 and 19 July of this year, on 23 July of this year I delivered reasons on certain aspects of this litigation that fell for determination, in the course of which I required the parties to recast their trial directions, fixing the case for trial to commence next Monday 28 October 2019. The case has been on foot for some time. By and large, the parties complied with the directions made pursuant to consent orders, which I granted…

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 Arkin and Blasberg (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Arkin and Blasberg (No 2) [2019] FamCA 782
Case: [2019] FamCA 782
Decision Date: 24 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Arkin and Blasberg (No 2)*, the Honourable Justice Wilson of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application by a proposed intervener. The dispute concerned an application filed on 23 October 2019, and a related application filed on 24 October 2019, in which the proposed intervener sought to participate. The respondent husband was represented by Queen's Counsel and Senior Counsel.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the proposed intervener leave to file an amended application in the proceedings. This involved assessing the merits of the proposed intervention and its potential impact on the existing litigation.

Justice Wilson granted leave for the proposed intervener to file an amended application in the case dated 23 October 2019. However, the Court dismissed the proposed intervener’s amended application in the case filed on 24 October 2019. Consequently, the proposed intervener was ordered to pay the costs associated with the appearance of the respondent husband's legal representatives on 24 October 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted to the proposed intervener to file an amended application in a case dated 23 October 2019.

The proposed intervener’s amended application in the application in a case filed in court on 24 October 2019 is dismissed.

The proposed intervener is to pay the costs of and incidental to the appearance of both Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel for the respondent husband on 24 October 2019.«FCA_LD221»

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.