Decaux and Sabri

Case [2017] FamCAFC 32

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DECAUX & SABRI [2017] FamCAFC 32
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – change of venue – where the trial judge transferred proceedings from Brisbane to Newcastle – where the procedural orders made were interlocutory and leave to appeal was required – where the applicant alleged the balance of convenience was in his favour – where there was no substantial injustice – where there was no error in the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion – leave to appeal not granted.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 90SM, 94AA
Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 8.01
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited v Philip Morris Incorporated and Anor (1981) 148 CLR 170
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564
K and S & V (2001) FLC 93-070
Niemann v Electronics Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431
Rutherford & Rutherford (1991) FLC 92-255
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238
Sheen & Paulo [2007] FamCA 1175
APPLICANT: Mr Decaux
RESPONDENT: Ms Sabri
FILE NUMBER: BRC 7680 of 2016
APPEAL NUMBER: NA 82 of 2016
DATE DELIVERED: 28 February 2017
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J
HEARING DATE: 28 February 2017
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 2 November 2016
LOWER COURT MNC: [2016] FCCA 2880

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person
FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person via Videolink from the Newcastle Registry

Orders

  1. The application for leave to appeal filed 27 January 2017 be dismissed.

  2. The Amended Notice of Appeal filed 27 January 2017 be otherwise dismissed.

  3. Each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and appeal.

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 Decaux & Sabri 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 BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 82  of 2016
File Number: BRC 7680  of 2016

Mr Decaux

Applicant

And

Ms Sabri

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

[1]As indicated during the oral delivery of these reasons, citations, headings and complete quotations have been included in these settled reasons. 

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT[1]

  1. Mr Decaux alleges that he and Ms Sabri were in a de facto relationship within the meaning of s 4AA of the Family Law Act “for at least three and a half years”.[2] Ms…

Continue reading Decaux and Sabri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Decaux and Sabri [2017] FamCAFC 32
Case
[2017] FamCAFC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application in this matter was brought by Decaux in relation to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed its appeal against an earlier decision of the Land and Environment Court. Decaux's application was to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing its appeal against the earlier decision of the Land and Environment Court. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal, which comprised of Rares P, Perram and Lee JJA. The central legal issue in this case was whether Decaux was entitled to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing its appeal against the decision of the Land and Environment Court. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and the practice and procedure of the Court of Appeal in relation to appeals from decisions of the Supreme Court. The court found that Decaux's application for leave to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court was not within the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). The court held that the application was an attempt to appeal against the dismissal of an earlier appeal, which was not permissible under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the amended notice of appeal filed by Decaux. The court held that each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and appeal. The orders made by the court were that the application for leave to appeal filed 27 January 2017 be dismissed, the Amended Notice of Appeal filed 27 January 2017 be otherwise dismissed, and each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and appeal. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application for leave to appeal filed 27 January 2017 be dismissed.

2.

The Amended Notice of Appeal filed 27 January 2017 be otherwise dismissed.

3.

Each party bear their own costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and appeal.

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.