BANHAM
v
BANHAM
[2022] HCASL 5
M54/2021
The applicant identifies no question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider. An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman 10 February 2022
Details
- AGLC
- Banham v Banham [2022] HCASL 5
- Case
- [2022] HCASL 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court heard an application for special leave to appeal in the matter of Banham v Banham. The matter concerns a dispute between the parties, Mr Banham and Ms Banham, over the interpretation and application of certain provisions of a property settlement agreement. The matter was originally heard in the Family Court of Australia, with the High Court being the final appellate court in the matter.
The legal issues before the Court were whether there were questions of principle that it would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider, and whether the appeal enjoyed sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Banham, argued that there were questions of principle concerning the interpretation and application of the property settlement agreement that warranted the Court's consideration. The respondent, Ms Banham, argued that the appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success and that there were no questions of principle that would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider.
The Court found that there were no questions of principle that it would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider, and that the appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant the Court's intervention. The Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
The legal issues before the Court were whether there were questions of principle that it would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider, and whether the appeal enjoyed sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Banham, argued that there were questions of principle concerning the interpretation and application of the property settlement agreement that warranted the Court's consideration. The respondent, Ms Banham, argued that the appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success and that there were no questions of principle that would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider.
The Court found that there were no questions of principle that it would be in the interests of justice for the Court to consider, and that the appeal did not enjoy sufficient prospects of success. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant the Court's intervention. The Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.