GODDARD & PATTERSON - [2011] FamCAFC 14

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GODDARD & PATTERSON

[2011] FamCAFC 14

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – loans made by the parties’ business to the parties – whether the trial judge double counted the loans – whether the trial judge erred in identifying a loan as a joint liability of the parties – whether the trial judge erred in accepting that the husband was not in a position to repay the loans – no merit in any ground.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – valuations – whether the trial judge erred in relation to the valuation of a property – whether the trial judge erred in not accepting the figure for goodwill assigned to the business by the single expert –whether the trial judge erred in not utilising the single expert’s valuation of the business – no merit in grounds.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the husband’s father provided a monetary gift to the parties which was applied to the purchase of a property – whether the trial judge erred in the weight attributed to this contribution on behalf of the husband – no error established.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT –whether the trial judge erred in finding that there should be no adjustment in favour of the wife on account of shares held by the husband – no merit in ground.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – whether the trial judge erred in not awarding the wife a lump sum payment of spousal maintenance in addition to monthly maintenance – whether the trial judge erred in relation to the amount of spousal maintenance the husband was to pay to the wife and the period of time during which spousal maintenance should be paid –– no merit in ground.

FAMILY LAW - APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – application to adduce further evidence – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – financial circumstances of the wife – no order for costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 75(2), 79 & 93A(2)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 69(3)(a)

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite (1948) 1 All ER 343
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

SSHontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37

APPELLANT:

Ms Goddard

RESPONDENT:

Mr Patterson

FILE NUMBER:

PTW

6286

2006

APPEAL NUMBER:

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

7 February 2011

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Perth

JUDGMENT OF:

Bryant CJ, Coleman and Strickland JJ

HEARING DATE:

29 June 2010

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Western Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

12 August 2009

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2009] FCWA 103

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Thillagaratnam

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

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 GODDARD & PATTERSON

Details

AGLC: GODDARD & PATTERSON [2011] FamCAFC 14
Case: [2011] FamCAFC 14
Decision Date: 7 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the husband, challenging a decision of the Family Court concerning the property settlement and spousal maintenance between the parties. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the lower court's judgment.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in several respects, including the handling of loans made by the parties’ business, the valuation of properties and goodwill, the identification of a monetary gift provided by the husband's father, the adjustment for shares held by the husband, and the determination of spousal maintenance. The husband argued that the trial judge had double-counted the business loans, misidentified a joint liability, and incorrectly assessed his capacity to repay the loans. Additionally, he contested the valuation of properties and the business, the contribution from his father, and the calculation of spousal maintenance.

The Full Court found no merit in any of the husband's grounds of appeal. The court was satisfied that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and made no errors in identifying or valuing the assets, the handling of the business loans, the assessment of the father's contribution, or in the determination of spousal maintenance. The court also dismissed the wife's application to adduce further evidence and made no order for costs due to the wife's financial circumstances and the wholly unsuccessful nature of the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, the application to adduce further evidence was also dismissed, and no order for costs was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The wife’s Application for leave to adduce further evidence be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.