Buick and Boesten and Ors
Case
•
[2013] FamCA 208
•5 April 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
BUICK & BOESTEN AND ORS
[2013] FamCA 208
[2013] FamCA 208
5 April 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Buick and Boesten, sought to appeal a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The dispute concerned the division of property following the breakdown of a marriage. The appeal was heard by Dawe J of the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrates Court had erred in its assessment of the parties' respective contributions and future needs when making final property adjustment orders. Specifically, the applicants contended that the original court had failed to adequately consider certain contributions and had made an erroneous assessment of future needs.
Dawe J dismissed the husband's Amended Application in a Case. The reasons for this dismissal, as indicated by the orders, suggest that the court found no error in the original decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrates Court had erred in its assessment of the parties' respective contributions and future needs when making final property adjustment orders. Specifically, the applicants contended that the original court had failed to adequately consider certain contributions and had made an erroneous assessment of future needs.
Dawe J dismissed the husband's Amended Application in a Case. The reasons for this dismissal, as indicated by the orders, suggest that the court found no error in the original decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
BUICK & BOESTEN AND ORS
[2013] FamCA 208
Most Recent Citation
Re IPM Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 240
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
1
Naczek & Dowler
[2011] FamCAFC 179
Holborow v MacDonald Rudder
[2002] WASC 265
Afkos Industries Pty Ltd v Pullinger Stewart
[2001] WASCA 372