GODARD & DORSETT - [2017] FamCAFC 220

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GODARD & DORSETT

[2017] FamCAFC 220

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE – Interim orders – Where leave to appeal is required – Reasons for requiring leave to appeal in certain categories of case discussed – Despite arguable deficiencies in the primary judge’s reasons, no substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused supposing the decision to be wrong – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Although the appellant’s application was unsuccessful, there was some merit in the arguments advanced – Respondent’s application for costs dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692

APPELLANT:

Mr Godard

RESPONDENT:

Ms Dorsett

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

4107

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

18 October 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Thackray, Ainslie-Wallace & Murphy JJ

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2017

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

8 February 2017

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2017] FamCA 51

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Gould

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Harris Freidman Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Fowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Byrnes Lawyers

Orders

The appellant be granted leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to seek leave to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
The application for costs made by the respondent be dismissed.

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 Godard & Dorsett 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 FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 23 of 2017
File Number: SYC 4107 of 2014

Mr Godard

Appellant

And

Ms Dorsett

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Thackray J

Before the Full Court today is the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 March 2017 by Mr Godard (“the husband”). The respondent to the appeal is Ms Dorsett (“the wife”). The appeal is against an order made by Stevenson J on 8 February 2017, following a brief hearing in a duty list on 25 January 2017.
The order the subject of the appeal provides that
(1) The husband will pay to the wife a sum of $450 per week by way of adult child maintenance for [Ms D] [the daughter of the husband and wife] …, born [in] December 1997 until she completes her current university degree or ceases that course.
That order was made on an application filed by the wife on 19 December 2016, which therefore came on for hearing on a…

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 GODARD & DORSETT

Details

AGLC: GODARD & DORSETT [2017] FamCAFC 220
Case: [2017] FamCAFC 220
Decision Date: 18 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Godard & Dorsett involved the appellant seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The appellant challenged the court's ruling regarding the interpretation and application of a contractual clause within a commercial agreement. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of the appeal and the costs application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's Notice of Appeal was appropriately filed and if it contained the necessary details to warrant leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to assess the merits of the respondent's application for costs. The appellant argued that the appeal was permissible under the relevant legislation and that the costs application was unjust.

The court determined that while the appellant was entitled to amend the Notice of Appeal to correct any deficiencies, the current form of the notice did not provide sufficient grounds for leave to appeal. The court held that the appeal did not meet the statutory criteria for leave and dismissed the application accordingly. Furthermore, the court found that the respondent's application for costs was not substantiated and was also dismissed. Consequently, the appellant's application for leave to appeal was rejected, and the respondent's application for costs was denied.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be granted leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to seek leave to appeal, the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, and the application for costs made by the respondent be dismissed. These orders reflect the court's determination on the procedural and substantive issues presented in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant be granted leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to seek leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

The application for costs made by the respondent be dismissed.

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.