Bridges v Bridges

BRIDGES
v
BRIDGES
[2020] HCASL 172
M39/2020

This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Family Court of Australia (Strickland J) exercising appellate jurisdiction. The application for special leave has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. In light of the limited pool of funds available to the parties, a grant of special leave to appeal would not be in the interests of administration of justice. The first and third proposed grounds of appeal raise no issue of sufficient public importance to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The proposed appeal is an unsuitable vehicle for consideration of the second proposed ground, concerning the use of comparable cases as a guide to determining the standard of a just and equitable property division.
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

2 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the matter of Bridges v Bridges was heard as an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Family Court of Australia. The appeal concerns a property settlement between the parties, who were previously married. The primary judge, Strickland J, exercised appellate jurisdiction in the Family Court. The applicant, Mr. Bridges, sought to appeal against the decision of the Family Court which had upheld the original property settlement.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal had sufficient prospects of success and whether the proposed grounds of appeal raised issues of sufficient public importance. The applicant argued that the Family Court had incorrectly applied the principles of property settlement, particularly in relation to the use of comparable cases. The Court was also required to consider the financial implications for the parties and the overall interests of the administration of justice.

The High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success. The Court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Family Court's decision was incorrect or that the proposed grounds of appeal had merit. Furthermore, the Court held that the limited pool of funds available to the parties meant that an appeal would not be in the interests of the administration of justice. The Court also found that the second proposed ground of appeal, concerning the use of comparable cases, was not a suitable vehicle for consideration by the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up an order dismissing the application with costs. The decision underscores the stringent criteria required for an application for special leave to appeal to succeed, particularly in family law matters involving property settlements.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established