GADE and Jabbar (No.19) - [2018] FCCA 2903

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GADE & JABBAR (No.19)

[2018] FCCA 2903

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – application for a stay.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106

Applicant:

MS JABBAR

Respondent:

MR GADE

File Number:

NCC 2265 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Terry

Hearing date:

2 October 2018

Date of Last Submission:

2 October 2018

Delivered at:

Newcastle

Delivered on:

4 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

NLS Law

ORDERS

The wife’s application in a case filed on 14 September 2018 is dismissed.
The wife shall pay the husband’s costs fixed in the sum of $1500.00 with those costs to be paid contemporaneously with the husband paying to the wife the money he is required to pay to her pursuant to the property orders made on 11 May 2018.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Gabe & Jabbar (No.19) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 2265 of 2015

MS JABBAR

Applicant

And

MR GADE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These reasons for judgment were delivered orally and have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.
I have before me an application in case filed by the wife on 14 September 2018 seeking a stay of orders I made on 4 September 2018 requiring her to vacate Property A.
The wife also seeks a more wide ranging order, namely that all property orders made in respect of Property A including but not limited to the 4 September 2018 orders not be executed. However I already determined a stay application in relation to the property orders generally and I cannot reconsider my decision in that regard.
I can consider the stay application in relation to the 4 September 2018 orders and the wife proposed that the order that she vacate the property be stayed until her appeals to the Full Court against the substantive property orders I made on 11 May 2018 and my refusal of her stay application in respect of those orders was heard. Those appeals have been consolidated and will be heard at the same time.
The wife’s application was originally listed before me on 21 September 2018 but at that point there was no proof that an appeal had been lodged. The wife was insistent that one had and the matter was adjourned to 7 October 2018 for further consideration.
I subsequently received advice from the Principle Registrar of our court that an appeal had been lodged on 20 September 2018, that is after the wife filed her original application but before the next adjourned date, and as a result of the appeal being lodged I have jurisdiction to consider the wife’s stay application.
The husband opposes that application.
There are many decided cases in relation to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading GADE and Jabbar (No.19)

Details

AGLC: GADE and Jabbar (No.19) [2018] FCCA 2903
Case: [2018] FCCA 2903
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Gade and Jabbar (No.19)*, Judge Terry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife, filed on 14 September 2018. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed, but it arose within the context of ongoing family law proceedings between the parties, Gade (husband) and Jabbar (wife).

The court was required to determine whether to grant the wife's application. The specific grounds for this application are not elaborated upon in the provided text.

Judge Terry dismissed the wife's application. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs fixed at $1500.00. These costs were to be paid at the same time as the husband paid the wife the money he was obligated to pay her under property orders made on 11 May 2018.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife’s application in a case filed on 14 September 2018 is dismissed.

The wife shall pay the husband’s costs fixed in the sum of $1500.00 with those costs to be paid contemporaneously with the husband paying to the wife the money he is required to pay to her pursuant to the property orders made on 11 May 2018.

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.