Bukari & Bukari (No 2)

Case [2022] FedCFamC1A 50

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Bukari & Bukari (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 50  

Appeal from: Bukari & Bukari [2021] FedCFamC2F 528
Appeal number(s): NAA 100 of 2021
File number(s): PAC 3346 of 2020
Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment: 8 April 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for summary dismissal and in the alternative for security for costs – Where the father appeals from interim parenting and property orders – Where the grounds of appeal do not identify any error on the part of the primary judge – Where the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – Application for summary dismissal granted – Application otherwise dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Father to pay the mother’s costs in a fixed sum.  
Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(k), 66E, 68P

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 7, 46

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.09(1)(d)

Cases cited:

Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30

Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654; [2015] FamCAFC 104

Ebner & Pappas (2014) FLC 93-619; [2014] FamCAFC 229

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69

Lindon v Commonwealth (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251; [1996] HCA 14

Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348; [2010] FamCAFC 101

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34

Number of paragraphs: 52
Date of hearing: 2 March 2022
Place: Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms Yu
Solicitor for the Appellant: AS Family Lawyers
The Respondent: Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: No appearance

ORDERS

NAA 100 of 2021
PAC 3346 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MR BUKARI  

Appellant
AND:

MS BUKARI

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The Application in an Appeal filed on 8 February 2022 is otherwise dismissed.

3.The father is to pay the mother’s costs fixed in the sum of $13,952.

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).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bukari & Bukari (No 2) has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE J:

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is an application for summary dismissal of an appeal…

Continue reading Bukari & Bukari (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bukari & Bukari (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 50
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1A 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal, the father sought to overturn interim parenting and property orders made in the Family Court. The mother, in response, filed an application for summary dismissal and, alternatively, for security for costs. The appeal was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the father's grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success. Given that the father's grounds did not identify any error by the primary judge and lacked any merit, the court concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success.

The court examined each of the father's grounds of appeal and found that none had any reasonable chance of success. Even when considering the father's arguments as favourably as possible, the court determined that there was no likelihood that leave to appeal would be granted. Consequently, the appeal was summarily dismissed. The court also dismissed the mother's application for security for costs, as it was not necessary to address the issues of abuse of process or the mother's request for security for costs given the outcome of the appeal. The court held that it was just to order the father to pay the mother's costs, given that he had interests in two properties and had not challenged the costs schedule. The court fixed the mother's costs at $13,952.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, the application for summary dismissal and security for costs was otherwise dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the sum of $13,952. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court's records, and the reasons for judgment could be reviewed for minor errors or to record variations to the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 100 of 2021

PAC 3346 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR BUKARI

Appellant

AND:

MS BUKARI

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Application in an Appeal filed on 8 February 2022 is otherwise dismissed.

3. The father is to pay the mother’s costs fixed in the sum of $13,952.

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).

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

None of the three grounds has any reasonable prospect of success, even if looked at as favourably as possible. There is no likelihood of leave to appeal being granted.CONCLUSION AND COSTS It follows that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success. It would not be just to require the wife to defend a meritless appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. It is therefore not necessary to deal with the mother’s assertions of abuse of process or her application for security for costs. The application has been entirely unsuccessful. There is no reason why an order for costs should not be made against the father who, although apparently unemployed, has interests in two properties. No challenge was made to the mother’s schedule of costs filed on 1 March 2022. The father will pay the mother’s costs fixed in the sum of $13,952.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.