[2004] FamCA 92
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
IN THE FULL COURT Appeal Nos. WA3L of 2002
OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA and WA8L of 2002
AT PERTH File No. PT 5888 of 1995
BETWEEN:
DEANN BEVERLEY BECK
Applicant/Appellant Wife
- and -
CEDRIC RICHARD PALMER BECK
Respondent Husband
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT
BEFORE: Ellis, Finn and Chisholm JJ
DATE OF HEARING: 2 July 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 February 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr Hooper of Counsel (instructed by Summers Partners, Level 3, 190 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000) appeared on behalf of the applicant/appellant wife.
Dr Dickey of Queen’s Counsel (instructed by the Paterson & Dowding, 2nd Floor, BGC Centre, 28 The Esplanade, Perth WA 6000) appeared on behalf of the respondent husband.
APPEAL SUMMARY
MATTER:BECK and BECK
APPEAL NUMBER: WA 3L of 2002 and 8L of 2002 (PT 5888 of 1995)
CORAM:Ellis, Finn and Chisholm JJ
DATE OF HEARING: 2 July 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 February 2004
CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW – APPEALS – Leave to appeal from summary dismissal of wife’s application under s 79A of Family Law Act 1975 – Principles governing summary dismissal of s 79A application – In determining an application for summary dismissal, regard should only be had to the material of the respondent to that application – Trial Judge erred in having regard to the material of the applicant for summary dismissal – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed
FAMILY LAW – APPEALS – SUBPOENA – Appeal not argued – Appeal dismissed.
Caselaw cited:
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Webster v Lampard (1993) 117 CLR 598
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No 2) (1996) ALJR 541
WA3L of 2002:
Appeal dismissed (appeal not argued).
WA8L of 2002:
Leave to Appeal granted.
Appeal allowed. Orders set aside. Application for summary dismissal remitted for re-hearing.
Directions made for the filing of written submissions as to costs of both appeals.
REPORTABLE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. WA8L
Introduction
This is an application by the wife for leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, an appeal against an order made by Holden J on 8 November 2002. The effect of that order was to dismiss on a summary basis part of an application by the wife under s 79A(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) for the variation of a property settlement order made by consent on 8 March 1996. Section 79A(1) provides as follows:
“(1) Where, on application by a person affected by an order made by a court under section 79 in proceedings with respect to the property of the parties to a marriage or either of them, the court is satisfied that:
(a) there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of fraud, duress, suppression of evidence (including failure to disclose relevant information), the giving of false evidence or any other circumstance; or
(b) in the circumstances that have arisen since the order was made it…
Continue reading Beck & Beck
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Beck & Beck [2004] FamCA 92
- Case
- [2004] FamCA 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether Justice Penny's original orders were affected by an error of law, thereby justifying the grant of leave to appeal.
The Full Court, comprising Ellis, Finn, and Chisholm JJ, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. This indicates that the Court found no sufficient error of law in the original orders to warrant a full appeal. The reasoning behind this dismissal is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome signifies that the original orders of Justice Penny were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application for leave to appeal the orders made by the Honourable Justice Penny on 7 June 2002 be dismissed.
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.