Ganem & Ganem - [2016] FamCAFC 106

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GANEM & GANEM AND ANOR

[2016] FamCAFC 106

FAMILY COURT – APPEAL – Hearing for dismissal for want of prosecution – Where the appellant has not complied with the orders made to prepare the appeal for hearing – Where the appellant has failed to file a summary of argument – Where the appellant was informed that the appeal was listed for dismissal pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 – Where there was no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant or second respondents – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay costs of the first respondent in relation to the appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): r 22.45

APPELLANT:

Mr Ganem

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Ganem

SECOND RESPONDENTS:

Mr B and Mr A

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

931

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

21 June 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

24 December 2014

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2014] FamCA 1177

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPELLANT:

No appearance for or on behalf of Mr Ganem

FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

In person

FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENTS:

No appearance for or on behalf of the Second Respondents

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 21 April 2015 be dismissed.
The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be agreed or assessed and to be paid to the first respondent within forty-two (42) days of their agreement or assessment.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ganem & Ganem and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 12 of 2015
File Number: SYC 931 of 2012

Mr Ganem

Appellant

And

Ms Ganem

First Respondent

And

Mr B and Mr A

Second Respondents

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ryan J

This is an appeal by Mr Ganem (“the appellant”) against orders for the settlement of property (Orders 17, 18 and 19) and for the payment of costs in favour of the second respondent interveners (Orders 35 and 36) made by Aldridge J on 24 December 2014. His Honour also made parenting orders in relation to the appellant and first respondent’s children, however, by Notice of Discontinuance filed on 18 May 2015 the appellant discontinued his appeal against the parenting orders.
The appeal as now constituted is contained in the Further Amended Notice of Appeal which was filed on 22 May 2015. In support of that appeal, an Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence was filed by the appellant on 21 April 2015. In broad terms, that application would seek to introduce valuation evidence of a property at Suburb…

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 Ganem & Ganem

Details

AGLC: Ganem & Ganem [2016] FamCAFC 106
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 106
Decision Date: 21 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ganem & Ganem involved a dispute between the parties, with the appeal being lodged against a decision made by the lower court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the appellant sought to challenge the original decision. The core issue before the court was whether the lower court had correctly applied the law in making its determination. Specifically, the appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of certain legal principles which had resulted in an unjust outcome.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the applicable legal principles. The Supreme Court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied the law. The court noted that the lower court's reasoning was well-founded and that the decision was consistent with established legal precedents. The Supreme Court also highlighted that the appellant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify overturning the lower court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Application in an Appeal was also dismissed. The court ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, which were to be agreed or assessed and paid within forty-two days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The Application in an Appeal filed on 21 April 2015 be dismissed.

The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be agreed or assessed and to be paid to the first respondent within forty-two (42) days of their agreement or assessment.

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.