DORSETT & GODARD - [2017] FamCA 51

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DORSETT & GODARD

[2017] FamCA 51

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the husband pays the child’s school fees – Where the husband seeks that the wife contribute equally to the costs of the school fees – Where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made findings based on the husband’s payment of the child’s school fees – Where the husband has not advanced a proper basis for a change in the existing arrangements for the payment of school fees – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay adult child maintenance – Where the adult child is a student at university – Where the adult child requires financial support to complete her education – Where the husband did not contend that he lacks the financial capacity to provide financial support – Where the Court does not accept that the husband should provide no financial support – Order made that the husband pay adult child maintenance in the amount of $450 per week.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 66L, 66F

Cosgrove and Cosgrove (1996) FLC 92-700

APPLICANT:

Ms Dorsett

RESPONDENT:

Mr Godard

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

4107

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

8 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Justice Stevenson

HEARING DATE:

25 January 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Rugendyke

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Byrnes Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Stubbs

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Harris Friedman Lawyers

Orders

The husband will pay to the wife a sum of $450 per week by way of adult child maintenance for Ms D, born in 1997 until she completes her current university degree or ceases that course.

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 Dorsett & Godard 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4107 of 2014

Ms Dorsett

Applicant

And

Mr Godard

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

By an Application in a Case filed on 19 December 2016 the wife, Ms Dorsett, sought the following orders:
1.That within 7 days the Respondent do all acts, sign all documents and pay all monies necessary to re-enrol the child, [B] as a boarder at [C School] for 2017.
2.That the Respondent is restrained from terminating [B's] enrolment at [C School] pending [B] completing his school there.
3.That the Respondent pay as and when same falls due, all school fees in relation to [B's] schooling at [C School] including but not limited to…

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 DORSETT & GODARD

Details

AGLC: DORSETT & GODARD [2017] FamCA 51
Case: [2017] FamCA 51
Decision Date: 8 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Dorsett & Godard*, heard before Justice Stevenson, the dispute concerned child support arrangements and adult child maintenance. The husband sought an equal contribution from the wife towards the child's school fees, which he had been solely paying. Conversely, the wife sought adult child maintenance from the husband for their daughter, who was undertaking university studies and required financial support.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether there was a proper basis to vary the existing arrangements for the payment of school fees, specifically concerning the husband's claim for equal contribution from the wife. Secondly, the court had to consider the wife's application for adult child maintenance, assessing the husband's obligation to contribute financially to their daughter's university education.

Regarding the school fees, Justice Stevenson found that the husband had not advanced a proper basis for a change to the existing arrangements, and therefore, his application was dismissed. In relation to adult child maintenance, the court accepted that the adult child required financial support to complete her university degree. The husband did not contend that he lacked the financial capacity to provide such support, and the court did not accept that he should provide no financial support. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay adult child maintenance of $450 per week for Ms D until she completes her current university degree or ceases that course.

Orders

Orders of the court

The husband will pay to the wife a sum of $450 per week by way of adult child maintenance for Ms D, born in 1997 until she completes her current university degree or ceases that course.

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.