CITATION: | Cavenett v Cavenett [2018] QCATA 61 |
| PARTIES: | David Alan Cavenett (Appellant) |
| v | |
| Stephanie Joy Cavenett (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL339-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | 26 April 2018 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
DELIVERED ON: | 4 May 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant did not explain why material not submitted earlier – where material would not have important impact on result APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Interference with member’s findings of fact – whether evidence capable of supporting findings – where Agreement between former husband and wife to equally share children’s private school fees – where open for Tribunal to make alternative findings about making and terms of Agreement does not amount to error sufficient to warrant granting of leave to appeal – whether intention to create legal relations – where open for Tribunal to find binding legal Agreement Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 12, s 143, Schedule 3 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 |
APPEARANCES: | |
APPELLANT: | Mr David Cavenett appeared in person |
RESPONDENT: | Ms Stephanie Cavenett appeared in person |
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this appeal about?
On 20 September 2017, the Tribunal ordered David Cavenett to pay Stephanie Cavenett the sum of $16,979.40 by 20 October 2017.
Mr Cavenett and Ms Cavenett are divorced, but have children from the former marriage.The Tribunal found that Mr Cavenett and Ms Cavenett had agreed that they would equally share their children’s private school fees until they finish in 2019 and that Mr Cavenett had not paid his share to Ms Cavenett.
Mr Cavenett wants to appeal the Tribunal’s decision. He says that he and Ms Cavenett had no binding Agreement for him…
Continue reading Cavenett v Cavenett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cavenett v Cavenett [2018] QCATA 61
- Case
- [2018] QCATA 61
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the grounds for the appeal, focusing on whether the Family Court's decision to not admit the new evidence constituted an error of law or an interference with its discretion. The court noted that the appellant did not provide an adequate explanation for why the material was not submitted earlier, and that the material in question would not have had a significant impact on the result. The court also considered whether the Family Court's findings on the agreement between the former spouses to share the children's private school fees equally were supported by the evidence and whether the court was open to making alternative findings on the making and terms of the agreement. The court found that the Family Court's decision to not admit the new evidence was not an error of law or an interference with its discretion, and that the findings on the agreement were open to the Family Court.
The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and that leave to appeal should be refused. The court held that the Family Court's decision to not admit the new evidence was not an error of law or an interference with its discretion, and that the findings on the agreement were open to the Family Court. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Family Court's decision was so wrong as to justify the granting of leave to appeal.
The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the Family Court's decision to not admit the new evidence was not an error of law or an interference with its discretion, and that the findings on the agreement were open to the Family Court. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Family Court's decision was so wrong as to justify the granting of leave to appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused.
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.