FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FITZMAURICE & WOOLRIDGE | [2020] FamCAFC 64 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – De facto property dispute – Appeal against property orders requiring the sale of the former matrimonial home – Failure to quantify an assessment of contributions made by the parties – Where the primary judge did not attempt to make an assessment of future needs – Inadequacy of reasons – Appeal allowed – Orders set aside – Proceedings remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted to the parties for the rehearing. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SF(3), 90SM |
| Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143; [2003] FamCA 395 Keskin & Keskin and Anor (2019) FLC 93-932; [2019] FamCAFC 236 Martin & Newton (2011) FLC 93-490; [2011] FamCAFC 233 Norman & Norman [2010] FamCAFC 66 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52 Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Fitzmaurice |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Woolridge |
| FILE NUMBER: | DGC | 2566 | of | 2017 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SOA | 42 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 30 March 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace & Ryan JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 February 2020 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 23 July 2019 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2019] FCCA 1834 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Dr Smith, directly briefed from the appellant |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Farrar Gesini Dunn (not participating) |
Orders
The appeal be allowed.
The orders made on 23 July 2019 be set aside.
The proceedings be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for rehearing by a judge other than the primary judge.
There be no order as to costs.
The Court grants to each of the appellant and the respondent a costs certificate pursuant to s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant and to the respondent in respect of the costs incurred by each of them in relation to the new trial ordered.
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 Fitzmaurice & Woolridge 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)
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
Appeal Number:…
Continue reading Fitzmaurice & Woolridge
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fitzmaurice & Woolridge [2020] FamCAFC 64
- Case
- [2020] FamCAFC 64
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the orders made by the primary judge were appropriate and whether there had been any error in the handling of the case that warranted a rehearing. The court was tasked with reviewing the grounds of appeal, which included allegations of procedural unfairness and potential bias on the part of the primary judge. The court had to determine if these grounds were sufficient to warrant setting aside the original orders and remitting the proceedings for a rehearing.
In its decision, the Federal Court found that there were indeed grounds for allowing the appeal. The court identified that the primary judge had made errors in the handling of the case, which affected the fairness of the proceedings. As a result, the orders made on 23 July 2019 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for rehearing by a different judge. The court noted that there would be no order as to costs, but it did grant a costs certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for both parties, allowing the Attorney-General to consider authorising payments for costs incurred in relation to the new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The orders made on 23 July 2019 be set aside.
3.
The proceedings be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for rehearing by a judge other than the primary judge.
4.
There be no order as to costs.
5.
The Court grants to each of the appellant and the respondent a costs certificate pursuant to s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant and to the respondent in respect of the costs incurred by each of them in relation to the new trial ordered.
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.