FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FROST (DECEASED) & WHOOTEN | [2018] FamCAFC 177 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – JURISDICTION – Matrimonial cause – Whether the wife’s Initiating Application sufficiently identified the matrimonial cause relied upon to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court – Where the primary judge found that the Initiating Application sought property orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – No error demonstrated. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – JURISDICTION – Death of a party – Electronic filing – Where the wife electronically lodged an Initiating Application with the Family Court after the deadline prescribed in r 24.05(2) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) and the husband died several hours later – Application of r 24.05(2) – Meaning of “filed” – Distinction between “received by the registry” and “filed” – Whether rules can have a substantive effect on parties’ rights – Whether rules can be applied to create or invoke jurisdiction – Where the primary judge erred by deeming the Initiating Application to have been filed at the time it was electronically received by the Court as he lacked the jurisdiction to do so – Appeal allowed. |
| Australian Constitution s 76 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 41(7) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 8(1), 31(1)(a), 39(1),79, 79(8), 82, 94(1A), 94AAA(5), 123 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.09, 1.12, 1.14, 2.01, 4.02, 13.04, 22.03, 24.05, 24.05(2), 24.10 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.25(3) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Part 20 r 1 |
| APPELLANTS: | Mr Swallow and Mr Banford as the Legal Personal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Mr Frost |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Whooten |
Continue reading Frost (Deceased) & Whooten
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Frost (Deceased) & Whooten [2018] FamCAFC 177
- Case
- [2018] FamCAFC 177
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether the Initiating Application sufficiently identified the matrimonial cause to invoke the Family Court’s jurisdiction and whether the application was validly filed given the husband’s death and the electronic filing deadline. The Court examined the meaning of “filed” under r 24.05(2) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) and whether the rules could substantively affect the parties’ rights. The Court concluded that the primary judge erred by deeming the application filed at the time it was received electronically, as this went beyond his jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal found that the Initiating Application did not sufficiently identify the matrimonial cause as required to invoke the Family Court’s jurisdiction. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed. The Court set aside certain orders made by the primary judge and granted costs certificates to both the appellants and the respondent. The Court emphasised the distinction between “received by the registry” and “filed” and held that the rules could not be applied to create or invoke jurisdiction in a way that substantively affects the parties’ rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is allowed.
2.
Orders 1 and 3 of the orders made by Cronin J on 29 November 2017 are set aside.
3.
The Initiating Application of Ms Whooten received electronically by the Court on … 2016 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
4.
The Court grants to the appellants a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 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 appellants in respect of the costs incurred by them in relation to this appeal.
5.
The Court grants to the respondent a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 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 respondent in respect of the costs incurred by her in relation to this appeal.
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.