Deodes and Deodes and Ors - [2019] FamCAFC 97

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEODES & DEODES AND ORS

[2019] FamCAFC 97

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where at the time of the parties’ marriage the husband transferred ownership of a residential property to his sister and brother in law – Where the husband and the transferees gave evidence that the transfer was for good consideration – Where the wife sought a declaration that the property was held on trust for the husband – Where the trial Magistrate dismissed the application – Where the relevant findings of fact were open on the evidence at trial – Where those findings of fact could lead only to the conclusion reached – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 34(1)(b)

Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)

ALDI Foods Pty Ltd v Morroccanoil Israel (2018) 358 ALR 683; [2018] FCAFC 93
Allen & Snyder (1979) FLC 90-656
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550; [2016] HCA 22

APPELLANT:

Ms Deodes

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Deodes

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Danca

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Mr Danca

FILE NUMBER:

PTW

645

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

WEA

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

11 June 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Perth

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland, Kent & O’Brien JJ

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Magistrates Court of Western Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

26 September 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FCWAM 126

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr F Castiglione QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Elizabeth Wiese & Associates

THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND & THIRD

RESPONDENTS:

Mr R Hooper SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND & THIRD

RESPONDENTS:

Frichot & Frichot Lawyers

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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 Deodes & Deodes and Ors 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH

Appeal Number: WEA 37 of 2018
File Number: PTW 645 of 2015

Ms Deodes

Appellant

And

Mr Deodes

First Respondent

And

Ms Danca

Second Respondent

And

Mr Danca

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 26 September 2018, Magistrate Walter pronounced orders between the appellant wife and the first respondent husband (“the parties”) altering their interests in property pursuant to Part…

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 Deodes and Deodes and Ors

Details

AGLC: Deodes and Deodes and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 97
Case: [2019] FamCAFC 97
Decision Date: 11 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellants, Deodes and Deodes and others, sought to overturn a decision made by a lower court. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a property development agreement. The respondents argued that the appellants had breached the agreement by failing to comply with specific obligations, while the appellants contended that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the agreement's terms.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the property development agreement and applied it to the facts of the case. The court had to determine if the lower court's interpretation of the agreement's provisions was accurate and whether the appellants had indeed breached their obligations under the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to consider if there were any errors in the lower court's application of relevant law or if the lower court had made any errors in its findings of fact.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the lower court's interpretation of the property development agreement was correct and that the appellants had indeed breached their obligations under the agreement. The court held that the lower court had accurately applied the relevant provisions of the agreement to the facts of the case and had not erred in its interpretation or application of the law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the agreement's terms, the parties' conduct, and the applicable law, ultimately upholding the lower court's findings and conclusions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.