FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DOISY & WILMOT-DOISY [2009] FamCAFC 14
FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – trial Judge did not summarily dismiss a response – whether cause of action – application for leave to appeal dismissed
Family Law Act 1975, s 78, s 79, s 118(1)
Family Law Rules 2004, r 1.12, r 4.01(1)(a), r 6.05(b)(ii), r 9.01(2)(c), r 10.12, r 10.13, r 10.14, r 11.01
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s 31A
Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s 17A
A and A [2000] FamCA 1638
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Af Petersens and Af Petersens (1981) FLC 91-095
B Pty Ltd & K (2008) FLC 93‑380
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Coluzzi v Coluzzi [2001] NSWSC 94
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Dougherty v Dougherty (1987) 163 CLR 278
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Ferrall & McTaggart (trustees for Sapphire Trust) v Blyton (2000) FLC 93‑054
Fisher v Fisher (1986) 161 CLR 438
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Re Will of Gilbert (decd)(1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372
Jennings v Jennings (1997) FLC 92-773
Lanceley and Lanceley (1994) FLC 92-491
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No. 2) (1996) 70 ALJR 541
Norrish and Norrish; Rigoletto Nominees Pty Ltd (Intervener) (1990) FLC 92-152
Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Praxoulis v Praxoulis (1995) FLC 92‑621
Rutherford and Rutherford (1991) FLC 92-255
Sieling and Sieling (1979) FLC 90‑627
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
APPLICANT: Mrs Doisy
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mrs Wilmot-Doisy
SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr Doisy
FILE NUMBER: TVF 946 of 2002
APPEAL NUMBER: NA 59L of 2008
DATE DELIVERED: 6 February 2009
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Finn, Thackray and Strickland JJ
HEARING DATE: 12 November 2008
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 3 June 2008
LOWER COURT MNC: [2008] FamCA 706 REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Baston
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Miller Harris Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Mrs Pack SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Cope Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: No appearance Orders
That the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
That the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed, or in default of agreement as assessed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Doisy and Wilmot-Doisy is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE
Appeal Number: NA 59L of 2008
File Number: TVF 946 of 2002
Mrs Doisy Applicant
And
Mrs Wilmot-Doisy First Respondent
And
Mr Doisy Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.This is an application for leave to appeal and if leave is granted,…
Continue reading Doisy & Wilmot-Doisy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Doisy & Wilmot-Doisy [2009] FamCAFC 14
- Case
- [2009] FamCAFC 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Doisy & Wilmot-Doisy involved a legal dispute between the parties, the nature of which pertained to family law matters. The matter was presented in the Family Court of Australia. The court was tasked with examining the legal issues that arose from the application for leave to appeal, a procedural step that allows a party to seek permission from a higher court to review a decision made by a lower court.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal the decision of the Family Court. This involved a thorough review of the application and the grounds upon which it was based, as well as an assessment of whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to permit the appeal. The court also had to consider the impact of the appeal on the parties involved and the broader implications for family law jurisprudence.
In deliberating on the matter, the Family Court of Australia meticulously examined the application, the grounds for the appeal, and the relevant legal precedents. The court found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for leave to appeal. It was determined that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted permitting the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed, or in default of agreement, as assessed.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal the decision of the Family Court. This involved a thorough review of the application and the grounds upon which it was based, as well as an assessment of whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to permit the appeal. The court also had to consider the impact of the appeal on the parties involved and the broader implications for family law jurisprudence.
In deliberating on the matter, the Family Court of Australia meticulously examined the application, the grounds for the appeal, and the relevant legal precedents. The court found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for leave to appeal. It was determined that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted permitting the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed, or in default of agreement, as assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.
That the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed, or in default of agreement as assessed.
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.