FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COWPER & JENKINS | [2017] FamCAFC 39 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time – Application for an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Where the applicant seeks to appeal three sets of orders made by the primary judge – Where one set of orders was made by the consent of the parties – Where the applicant alleges fraud on the part of the respondent – Where there is no evidence that there is any merit to the proposed appeal – Where there is no reasonable explanation for delay – Application dismissed – Applicant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.14, 22.03
Allan and Ors & Allan and Ors (2014) FLC 93-606
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Robinson & Willis (1982) FLC 91-215
| APPLICANT: | Mr Cowper |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Jenkins |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 7499 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 16 | of | 2017 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 16 March 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Aldridge J |
| HEARING DATE: | 2 March 2017 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 27 February 2017 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FCCA 357 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | In person with a McKenzie friend |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Katie Smith Solicitor |
Orders
The Application in an Appeal filed on 20 January 2017 seeking an extension of time in which to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cowper & Jenkins has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 16 of 2017
File Number: SYC 7499 of 2010
| Mr Cowper |
Applicant
And
| Ms Jenkins |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
By an Application in an Appeal filed on 20 January 2017 Mr Cowper (“the applicant”) seeks an extension of time in which to appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 27 February 2015, 24 June 2015 and 1 November 2016. The orders were made in de facto property proceedings between Ms Jenkins (“the respondent”) and X Pty Ltd on the one hand and the applicant on the other.
On 27 February 2015 Judge Kemp declared that the applicant and the respondent had been in a de facto relationship for periods totalling 10…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read COWPER & JENKINS 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FamCAFC 39
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the application for an extension of time should be granted and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The court considered that Cowper had not provided any evidence to support the claim of fraud or to demonstrate that there was any merit to the proposed appeal. Furthermore, there was no reasonable explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal. The court had to weigh the factors of whether the delay was inordinate and whether there was any chance of success on the appeal.
The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, holding that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay and that there was no evidence of any merit to the proposed appeal. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the claim of fraud. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 20 January 2017 seeking an extension of time in which to appeal is dismissed.
2.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.