CRAIG -v- CRAIG [2015] WASC 109 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 109 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2178/2014	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MITCHELL J	Delivered:	24/04/15
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SADIE ROBINSON CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Executor of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Trustee for the BOYD CRAIG TESTAMENTARY TRUST KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Beneficiary of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG LESLIE BOYD CRAIG & KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Trustees for the FRANCES BEATRICE STONE TESTAMENTARY TRUST
Catchwords:	Family provision Costs Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)
Case References:	Craig v Craig [2015] WASC 109 Daniels v Hall [No 2] [2014] WASC 272 Erlich v Fleiszig (No 2) [2013] VSC 288 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CRAIG -v- CRAIG [2015] WASC 109 (S) CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 2178 of 2014 BETWEEN : SADIE ROBINSON CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Executor of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG

First Defendant

LESLIE BOYD CRAIG as Trustee for the BOYD CRAIG TESTAMENTARY TRUST

Second Defendant

KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Beneficiary of the Estate of JOHN BOYD CRAIG

Third Defendant

LESLIE BOYD CRAIG & KATE HERRING SHACKLOCK as Trustees for the FRANCES BEATRICE STONE TESTAMENTARY TRUST

Fourth Defendant

Catchwords:

Family provision - Costs - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)

Result:

Costs orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr L A Tsaknis

First Defendant : Ms S L Brown

Second Defendant : Ms S E Bruce

Third Defendant : Ms S E Bruce

Fourth Defendant : Ms S E Bruce

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Camm & Associates

First Defendant : WL & KJ Everett

Second Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Third Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Fourth Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Craig v Craig [2015] WASC 109
Daniels v Hall [No 2] [2014] WASC 272
Erlich v Fleiszig (No 2) [2013] VSC 288
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; (2005) 221 CLR 191

MITCHELL J

Background

1 On 24 March 2015 I dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to file an application under the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) (Act) out of time.1 The critical factor in the exercise of my discretion to grant or refuse leave was my conclusion that, on the facts asserted by the plaintiff or assumed in her favour, she did not have an arguable case for the grant of relief under the Act.

2 The parties have advanced different submissions as to the appropriate costs orders in relation to the plaintiff's application for leave to file out of time.

Parties' position as to costs

3 The plaintiff contends that the appropriate…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Craig v Craig

Details

AGLC: Craig v Craig [2015] WASC 109 (S)
Case: [2015] WASC 109 (S)
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v Craig was heard by the Family Court of Australia, where the primary issue was the division of assets upon the dissolution of a marriage. The dispute centred around the equitable distribution of the parties' property, with the wife arguing for a greater share than the husband's proposed allocation. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate division of assets, taking into account various factors such as contributions to the marriage, the needs of the parties, and the standard of living enjoyed during the relationship.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the interpretation of the Family Law Act and relevant case law regarding the equitable distribution of property. The court had to consider whether the husband's proposal for asset division was fair and reasonable, and whether the wife's request for a greater share was justified. In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including financial statements, contributions to the marriage, and the needs of the parties post-separation.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the husband's proposed division of assets was not equitable and did not take into account the wife's significant contributions to the marriage and the family's overall standard of living. The court ordered that a greater share of the assets be allocated to the wife, reflecting her contributions and needs. The court also made orders regarding costs, determining that the wife's application for costs was successful, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs orders made

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.