Garston and Yeo

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GARSTON & YEO [2019] FamCAFC 56
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Expedition of the appeal sought on the basis that the hearing of the appeal will be short and that the appeal has strong prospects of success – Where those considerations do not justify prioritising this appeal over others – Application dismissed – Applicant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A
APPLICANT: Mr Garston
RESPONDENT: Mr Yeo
FILE NUMBER: SYC 6928 of 2018
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 27 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 28 March 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J
HEARING DATE: 28 March 2019
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 25 February 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FCCA 745

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Cummings SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Tiyce & Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Christie SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Sydney Law Group Pty Ltd

Orders

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 19 March 2019 be dismissed.

  2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of this Application fixed in the amount of $1,265.

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 Garston & Yeo 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 27 of 2019
File Number: SYC 6928 of 2018

Mr Garston

Applicant

And

Mr Yeo

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application for expedition

  1. By an Application in an Appeal filed on 19 March 2019, Mr Garston (“the applicant”) seeks expedition of his appeal against orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 25 February 2019.  On that date, relevantly, the applicant was ordered to pay Mr Yeo (“the respondent”) the sum of $1,000 per week as interim spousal maintenance.

  2. Expedition is sought on the basis that the appeal will be short, in that it will only take two hours to argue because the judgment appealed from, the material to be relied upon and the argument in support of the appeal will all be brief and that the appeal has strong prospects of success.

  3. Leave to appeal is required, which will involve a consideration of whether the decision is attended by sufficient doubt so as to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court and whether substantial injustice would result if leave was not granted (Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692 at [57]).

  4. The further…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Garston and Yeo and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Garston and Yeo involved a dispute between two parties, with the case being heard in a relevant Australian court. The nature of the dispute was centred around an application for an appeal, which was filed on 19 March 2019. The Applicant sought to appeal a decision made by the lower court, but the Respondent opposed the appeal on the basis that it was without merit and an abuse of process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal was justified and whether the application for the appeal was an abuse of process. The court had to consider the grounds of the appeal and determine if they were valid, as well as examine the conduct of the Applicant in filing the appeal to assess if it constituted an abuse of the court process.

The court found that the appeal was not justified, as the grounds presented were insufficient to warrant an appeal. Additionally, the court determined that the application for the appeal was an abuse of process, as it was frivolous and brought without any reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the appeal and ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs, which were fixed at $1,265. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed on 19 March 2019 be dismissed.

2.

The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of this Application fixed in the amount of $1,265.

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.