Dyne v Hasbach

Dyne and Hasbach were involved in a de facto relationship which ended, leaving behind a financial agreement. Dyne sought reimbursement from Hasbach for debts incurred by Hasbach in Dyne's name after the financial agreement was signed. The tribunal dismissed Dyne's application, holding it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Dyne appealed this decision, seeking leave to appeal the tribunal's decision.

The primary issue before the court was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Dyne's application for reimbursement. A secondary issue was whether the grounds for leave to appeal had been satisfied. The court considered whether the tribunal's decision was erroneous in law, whether it occasioned a miscarriage of justice, or whether it was plainly wrong or unjust. The court also considered whether the appeal had prospects of success.

The court found that the tribunal had correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the agreement was not a binding financial agreement under the Family Law Act. The court held that the agreement was not binding as it was not in writing, signed, and witnessed in the required manner. The court also found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not satisfied, as the appeal was unlikely to succeed and the decision did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the tribunal's decision was not plainly wrong or unjust, and that there was no prospect of success on appeal.

The court refused leave to appeal, upholding the tribunal's decision that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the tribunal was upheld.