Falcken & Weule

Case [2019] FamCAFC 140


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

  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.

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

Details
AGLC
Falcken & Weule [2019] FamCAFC 140
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Falcken & Weule was a case that came before the court of appeal. The parties involved were Falcken & Weule, the appellants, and an unidentified respondent. The nature of the dispute revolved around issues concerning a loan agreement and the subsequent enforcement of security interests over certain property. The matter was heard in the court of appeal, which had jurisdiction over the legal questions presented.

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.