FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ARTHURMAN & ARTHURMAN | [2019] FamCAFC 214 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INTERIM PROPERTY – Leave to appeal – Whether the primary judge erred by refusing the husband’s application for summary dismissal of the wife’s application for the dissolution of a trust, reimbursement of land tax associated with sale of property and indemnification against future liability – Where the wife filed a Notice of Contention – Where the primary judge found that only the wife’s application for dissolution of the trust had no reasonable prospect of success but declined to strike out part of the wife’s application as the husband had not sought that his Honour do so – Whether the primary judge’s decision was “attended by substantial doubt” to warrant granting leave to appeal – Where the husband asserted that the primary judge had made errors of fact – No error of fact found – Where even if there was an error of fact, it would not be material to the outcome of the primary judge’s decision – Where the decision of the primary judge was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal – The husband has not established that he will suffer a substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused – Leave to appeal not granted – Where the parties had agreed costs of the appeal should follow the event – Husband ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 79A, 94AA Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.10, 10.12, 10.14 Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A(1)(a) |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Arthurman |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Arthurman |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 399 | of | 2017 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EAA | 114 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 19 November 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Melbourne |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Alstergren CJ, Aldridge… |
Continue reading Arthurman & Arthurman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Arthurman & Arthurman [2019] FamCAFC 214
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Arthurman & Arthurman, the dispute before the court involved a husband who sought leave to appeal a decision of a primary judge regarding his wife's application for the dissolution of a trust, reimbursement of land tax associated with the sale of property, and indemnification against future liability. The wife had filed a Notice of Contention, and the primary judge determined that only the application for the dissolution of the trust had no reasonable prospect of success. The husband argued that the primary judge erred in refusing his application for summary dismissal and that the decision was attended by substantial doubt.
The court was required to decide whether the primary judge had made an error in refusing the husband’s application for summary dismissal. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the husband's application for leave to appeal was justified and whether the primary judge’s decision was attended by substantial doubt. The husband contended that the primary judge had made errors of fact, but the court found no such errors and concluded that even if there were, they would not have been material to the outcome.
The court reasoned that the primary judge's decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The husband had not established that he would suffer a substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and also dismissed the appeal itself. The parties had agreed that the costs of the appeal should follow the event, leading to the husband being ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal in a fixed sum of $4,950.
The court was required to decide whether the primary judge had made an error in refusing the husband’s application for summary dismissal. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the husband's application for leave to appeal was justified and whether the primary judge’s decision was attended by substantial doubt. The husband contended that the primary judge had made errors of fact, but the court found no such errors and concluded that even if there were, they would not have been material to the outcome.
The court reasoned that the primary judge's decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The husband had not established that he would suffer a substantial injustice if leave to appeal were refused. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and also dismissed the appeal itself. The parties had agreed that the costs of the appeal should follow the event, leading to the husband being ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal in a fixed sum of $4,950.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appeal be otherwise dismissed.
3.
There be costs fixed in the amount of $4,950 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
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.