OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA Appeal No. EA74 of 2000
AT SYDNEY File No. SY4146 of 1994
BETWEEN:
BENNETT
Appellant Wife
- and -
BENNETT
Respondent Husband
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT
BEFORE: Ellis, Finn & Guest JJ
HEARD: 9 February 2001
JUDGMENT: 27 June 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr Sansom of Counsel (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of NSW, Level 4, 323 Castlereagh Street, SYDNEY, NSW, 2000) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Wife.
The Respondent Husband appeared on his own behalf.
APPEAL SUMMARY
MATTER: BENNETT and BENNETT NUMBER: EA74 of 2000 (SY4146 of 1994) CORAM: Ellis, Finn, and Guest JJ. DATE OF HEARING: 9 February 2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27 June 2001
CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS - Orders restraining institution of proceedings – s.68B.
This was an appeal by the wife against orders made by Cohen J. on 24 May, 2000, whereby his Honour dismissed an application by the wife for an order pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (FLA) that the husband be restrained without leave of the Court, further proceedings in relation to the child of the parties’ marriage.
The parties had separated in 1994 after approximately ten years of marriage. The husband initially conceded that the child should reside with the wife and orders were made for him to have three hours’ contact every alternate weekend. These orders provided for a re-listing of the matter in relation to contact issues after the release of a psychiatrist’s report on the child. In due course, the matter came before Lawrie J. who made orders providing that the child reside with the wife, and that the husband have contact on alternate weekends and for half the school holidays.
In January 2000, the husband further applied for the child to reside with him, and for leave to appeal out of time the orders made by Lawrie J. The wife sought that both those applications be dismissed and that the husband be restrained under s.68B from bringing further applications in relation to the child (without leave).
Cohen J. heard the matter on 23-24 May 2000. Although his Honour expressed doubts about whether an order could be made under s.68B restraining the institution of further proceedings without leave, he was prepared to assume that it could. However, his Honour dismissed (effectively summarily) on the basis that, putting the wife’s case at its…
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 Bennett v Bennett
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bennett v Bennett [2001] FamCA 462
Case
[2001] FamCA 462
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Bennett v Bennett*, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal from a judgment of a single judge concerning property settlement. The dispute arose between the former husband and wife following their separation, with the primary issue being the division of their matrimonial assets.
The Full Court was required to determine whether the single judge had erred in their assessment of the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the matrimonial property. Specifically, the court examined whether the weight given to certain contributions was appropriate and whether the overall division of assets was just and equitable.
The Full Court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 75 and 79, which govern property adjustment. The judges analysed the evidence presented at trial regarding the parties' respective roles within the marriage, their earning capacities, and their future needs. They affirmed that contributions are assessed over the entire course of the marriage and that both direct and indirect contributions are to be taken into account. The court also considered the impact of any future circumstances on the parties.
The Full Court upheld the original orders made by the single judge, finding no error in the application of the relevant legal principles or in the factual findings.