EVERETT & EVERETT

Everett & Everett involved an appeal against orders made by a Federal Magistrate regarding adult child maintenance. The appellant father challenged the decision of the Federal Magistrate to grant an order for adult child maintenance until the completion of tertiary education, arguing that the Magistrate erred in not imposing a temporal limitation on the order and that the reasons for making the order were inadequate. The respondent mother cross-appealed, arguing that the Magistrate erred in not backdating the order for adult child maintenance. The appellant also sought to adduce further evidence on the appeal, which the court considered in part.

The court identified that the Federal Magistrate erred in not placing a temporal limitation on the maintenance order and that the reasons provided were inadequate. The Magistrate had included an allowance for the adult child to purchase a motor vehicle and an amount for house cleaning and pool servicing, but had not adequately established the necessity for these provisions. The court found that the Magistrate's discretion did not miscarry regarding the timing of the commencement of the maintenance order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the orders were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing by a different judge. The court also granted costs certificates to both parties for the appeal and the rehearing.

In allowing the application in an appeal in part, the court admitted specific evidence that was not available at the original trial and potentially relevant to the appeal. The court dismissed the application to the extent it sought to adduce evidence that was not relevant to the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal had succeeded on a point of law, but made no order as to costs, reserving the costs of the further evidence application.