Baghti v Baghti - [2015] HCASL 166

BAGHTI
v
BAGHTI & ORS
[2015] HCASL 166
S115/2015

The applicant and the first respondent are husband and wife. They have one child. In 2009, the first respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant in the Family Court of Australia.
On 22 August 2012, the Family Court (Fowler J) made parenting orders and property orders.
On 17 September 2014, the applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court (Strickland, Ainslie‑Wallace and Ryan JJ). In the course of the appeal, counsel for the applicant conceded that the grounds of appeal in respect of the property orders could not be maintained. In respect of the parenting orders, the applicant claimed that the primary judge erred in relying on the opinions and recommendations of an expert witness. The applicant also claimed that the primary judge failed to make findings of fact in respect of allegations about the first respondent's conduct towards him. Judgment was reserved.
On 21 October 2014, the Full Court dismissed an application by the applicant to reopen the appeal, on the basis that the applicant had been given the opportunity to be heard, and had been heard on the matters he sought to raise again. On 5 May 2015, the Full Court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the grounds of appeal had any merit.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal to this Court from the interlocutory and final judgments of the Full Court. He requires an extension of time to do so.There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decisions. An appeal to this Court would have no prospect of success.The application for special leave to appeal would not succeed even if an extension of time were granted. That being so, the grant of an extension of time would be futile.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
15 October 2015 P.A. Keane

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baghti v Baghti and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] HCASL 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baghti v Baghti involves a dispute between a husband and wife, who have one child, regarding parenting and property orders made by the Family Court of Australia. The wife initiated proceedings against the husband in 2009, and the Family Court delivered its judgments on 22 August 2012. The husband subsequently appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which dismissed his appeal on 5 May 2015. The husband now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from both the interlocutory and final judgments of the Full Court, requiring an extension of time to do so.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether to grant the husband special leave to appeal and an extension of time, given the Full Court's decisions. The High Court considered whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decisions, whether an appeal to the High Court would have any prospect of success, and whether the grant of an extension of time would be futile.

The High Court determined that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decisions, and that an appeal to the High Court would have no prospect of success. The High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal would not succeed even if an extension of time were granted, and that granting an extension of time would be futile. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the husband's application for special leave to appeal and an extension of time.

Pursuant to rule 41.10.5, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Chief Justice and Justice Keane delivered the judgment of the Court on 15 October 2015.

Orders