Bonhomme & Bonhomme - [2025] FedCFamC1A 75

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2025] FedCFamC1A 75

Appeal from: Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854

Appeal number: NAA 371 of 2024

File number: SYC 6833 of 2023

Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ, CAREW & CARTER JJ

Date of judgment: 2 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the principles applicable in an appeal against a discretionary decision are well settled – Where the appellant must establish some error in the decision-making process – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to take into account relevant facts or took into account irrelevant facts – Where the appellant contends the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Where the appellant contends the decision was plainly wrong – Where there is no merit to the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, s 60CC

Cases cited:
Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Johnson v Johnson (No 3) (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48

Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343; [2007] FamCA 1230

Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Number of paragraphs: 97

Date of hearing: 3 April 2025

Place: Heard in Sydney, delivered in Brisbane

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms Tabbernor

Solicitor for the Appellant: Reid Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Gillies SC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Dorter Family Lawyers
ORDER

NAA 371 of 2024
SYC 6833 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MS BONHOMME

Appellant

AND:
MR BONHOMME

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ, CAREW & CARTER JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant’s application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
2.The appeal is dismissed.
3.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $12,000.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bonhomme & Bonhomme has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCLELLAND DCJ, CAREW…

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 Bonhomme & Bonhomme 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: [2025] FedCFamC1A 75
Decision Date: 2 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bonhomme & Bonhomme, the appeal was brought before the Family Court of Australia, where the primary issue was the resolution of a dispute between the parties, identified as Bonhomme and Bonhomme, concerning family law matters. The appellant contested the primary judge's discretionary decision on the grounds that the judge had either failed to consider relevant facts or had taken into account irrelevant facts, that the reasons provided were inadequate, and that the decision was plainly wrong. The appeal hinged on whether the appellant could successfully demonstrate an error in the decision-making process that warranted the court's intervention.

The court meticulously reviewed the grounds of appeal, assessing whether the appellant had established any error in the primary judge's decision. It found that there was no merit in the contention that the primary judge had failed to consider relevant facts or had improperly considered irrelevant facts. Furthermore, the court determined that the reasons provided by the primary judge were sufficient, and the decision reached was not plainly wrong. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had not demonstrated any error that would justify altering the primary judge's decision.

Consequently, the court ruled against the appellant on all grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in a fixed sum of $12,000, which was subject to entry in the court's records and potential review or variation under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). This outcome reflects the court's stance that the primary judge's decision was sound and that the appeal lacked merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant’s application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $12,000.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

Appeal from:	Bonhomme & Bonhomme [2024] FedCFamC1F 854
Appeal number:	NAA 371 of 2024
File number:	SYC 6833 of 2023
Judgment of:	MCCLELLAND DCJ, CAREW & CARTER JJ
Date of judgment:	2 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the principles applicable in an appeal against a discretionary decision are well settled – Where the appellant must establish some error in the decision-making process – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to take into account relevant facts or took into account irrelevant facts – Where the appellant contends the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Where the appellant contends the decision was plainly wrong – Where there is no merit to the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, s 60CC
Cases cited:	Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Johnson v Johnson (No 3) (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48 Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343; [2007] FamCA 1230 Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48
Number of paragraphs:	97
Date of hearing:	3 April 2025
Place:	Heard in Sydney, delivered in Brisbane
Counsel for the Appellant:	Ms Tabbernor
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Reid Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Gillies SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Dorter Family Lawyers

NAA 371 of 2024 SYC 6833 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MS BONHOMME Appellant
AND:	MR BONHOMME Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	MCCLELLAND DCJ, CAREW & CARTER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	2 MAY 2025