Dishman & Dishman (No 2)

Case [2020] FamCAFC 222

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISHMAN & DISHMAN (NO. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 222
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST COSTS ORDER – Where the appellant husband was ordered to pay part of the respondent wife’s costs of the property settlement proceedings – Weight challenges – Allegation of apprehended bias – No error of fact or law established – Husband seeking to re-agitate issues dealt with in the substantive proceedings – Where findings were open on the evidence – Appeal dismissed – Husband to pay the wife’s costs of the appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Sch 3, Div 10, r 24.05
Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30
Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148
Dishman & Dishman [2020] FamCAFC 15
Dishman & Dishman (No. 2) [2019] FCCA 2803
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Holding Co Pty Ltd and Anor (1983) 53 LGRA 325; [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110
Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88
SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48
APPELLANT: Mr Dishman
RESPONDENT: Ms Dishman
FILE NUMBER: PAC 6114 of 2018
APPEAL NUMBER: EAA 42 of 2020
DATE DELIVERED: 4 September 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney (via video link)
JUDGMENT OF: Ainslie-Wallace J
HEARING DATE: 11 August 2020
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 5 March 2020
LOWER COURT MNC: [2020] FCCA 726

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: Litigant in person
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Matthews Dooley & Gibson

Orders

  1. Appeal EAA 42 of 2020 against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 5 March 2020 is dismissed.

  2. The appellant husband pay the respondent wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $4,629.11 within forty-two (42) days of the date of these orders.

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 Dishman & Dishman (No. 2) 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY…

Continue reading Dishman & Dishman (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dishman & Dishman (No 2) [2020] FamCAFC 222
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 222
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dishman & Dishman (No 2) involved a dispute between a husband and wife concerning the distribution of their assets following their separation. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The wife, the respondent, appealed a decision made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court, which had been handed down on 5 March 2020. The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court judge had erred in the distribution of the parties' assets, and if so, whether the error was such that it warranted the setting aside of the original decision. The court had to examine the principles of property settlement under the Family Law Act 1975 and assess whether the decision-making process was flawed. The wife argued that the distribution was not fair and reasonable, while the husband contended that the decision was correct and should be upheld.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the Federal Circuit Court judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had not made any errors of law. The court was satisfied that the judge had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was fair and reasonable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision was upheld. The husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, amounting to $4,629.11, within forty-two days of the date of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Appeal EAA 42 of 2020 against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 5 March 2020 is dismissed.

2.

The appellant husband pay the respondent wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $4,629.11 within forty-two (42) days of the date of these orders.

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.