Forster & Forster

- Parties:
The case involves Mr. Forster as the appellant and Ms. Forster as the respondent.

- Nature of the Dispute:
The dispute revolves around various family law issues, including property settlement, costs, and procedural matters, arising from the separation and subsequent divorce of the parties. The appellant challenges several orders made by various judges in the Family Court of Australia.

- Court:
The case was heard by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

- Legal Issues:
The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether it was procedurally unfair or an abuse of discretion for orders to be made for the sale of the property, whether there was a lack of procedural fairness, a miscarriage of discretion, or inadequacy of reasons for the orders for sale of the property, whether leave to appeal could be granted given the property had been sold to a bona fide purchaser, whether the judge provided adequate reasons for the costs order, whether it is necessary for parenting orders to be in place before a divorce is granted, whether the inherent jurisdiction referred to in Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 remains good law for setting aside costs orders, and whether the adjournment should have been granted given the background of the case.

- Court's Reasoning and Outcome:
The Full Court found that there was no lack of procedural fairness, a miscarriage of discretion, or inadequacy of reasons for the orders for sale of the property. It also found that leave to appeal could not be granted because the property had been sold to a bona fide purchaser. The court confirmed that it is not necessary for parenting orders to be in place before a divorce is granted. It found that the judge provided adequate reasons for the costs order. The Full Court considered that there is no real distinction between the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the inherent jurisdiction in a case where property settlement orders have been made in the absence of a party. It found that Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 remains good law for setting aside costs orders. The court held that notwithstanding the principles in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, the adjournment should have been granted given the background of the case, including that the appellant had never had an opportunity to present his case. The Full Court set aside the property settlement and costs orders made on 2 July 2013 and ordered a new trial.

- Final Orders:
The appeal against the orders of 30 November 2012 was dismissed. The appeal against Order 7 of the orders made on 30 November 2012 was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal Orders 1, 3 and 5 of the orders made on 23 January 2013 was dismissed. The appeal against Order 3 of the orders made on 31 January 2013 was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal Orders 1, 2 and 4 of the orders made on 31 January 2013 was dismissed. The appeal against the orders made on 2 July 2013 was allowed. The orders made on 2 July 2013 were set aside. The application for property settlement was remitted for rehearing by a judge other than the Honourable Justice Cronin on an expedited basis. There was no order for costs in relation to this appeal. The Court granted to the appellant a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) and to the respondent a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The Court also granted to each party a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).