FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FALCKEN & WEULE | [2019] FamCAFC 140 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against orders for the division of property – Whether the primary judge erred in the determination of the parties’ various contributions and thus the overall assessment – Whether a disability insurance payment to the respondent should have been treated as a joint contribution since the premiums of the policy were paid from joint funds – Where a joint decision to use joint funds to obtain an insurance policy is a relevant consideration – Challenge to the weight that was given to the appellant’s contributions – Contributions are not assessed in isolation but as part of the myriad of contributions – Whether the primary judge erred in identifying the parties’ assets and liabilities to determine the property available for division – Where the appellant submits that items of property were or should have been “added-back” to the list of property to be divided – Where there was no error in the primary judge’s approach – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2) |
| Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204; [2004] FamCA 633 De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Holding Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28 Miller & Miller [2009] FamCAFC 121 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17 Raine & Creed [2015] FamCAFC 133 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35 Townsend and Townsend (1995) FLC 92-569; [1994] FamCA 144 Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858; [2018] FamCAFC 173 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48 Williams & Williams [2007] FamCA 313 Yates & Yates [2012] FamCAFC 138 Yeates and Yeates [2013] FCWA 117 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Falcken |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Weule |
| FILE NUMBER: | PTW | 7430 | of | 2015 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | WEA | 28 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 16 August 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Perth |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Aldridge & O'Brien JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 10 May 2019 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Western Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 30 July 2018 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2018] FCWA 138 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | In person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Evans |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Graeme A Ryan & Associates |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
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 Falcken & Weule 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…
Continue reading Falcken & Weule
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Falcken & Weule [2019] FamCAFC 140
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 140
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the loan agreement, specifically those related to the enforceability of security interests. The court was tasked with determining whether the security interests were properly created and whether the terms of the loan agreement allowed for their enforcement in the circumstances presented. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any statutory provisions or common law principles applied to the case that might affect the outcome.
The court's reasoning and analysis focused on the contractual language of the loan agreement, as well as relevant statutory provisions and common law principles. The court found that the security interests were validly created and that the terms of the loan agreement permitted their enforcement. The court also determined that no statutory provisions or common law principles applied that would alter the outcome. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
There be no order as to costs.
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.