[2006] QCA 496
COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA
PHILIPPIDES J
Appeal No 7645 of 2006
No BS4675 of 2005
| ELMA AGNES GOODWIN | Respondent (Applicant) |
| and | |
| SHANE CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN | Appellant (First Respondent) |
| and KERRI GAYLE GOODWIN | Not a Party (Second Respondent) |
| and |
SHANNON JADE GOODWIN Not a Party (Third
Respondent)
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/11/2006
ORDER
No appearance for or on behalf of the appellant
MR L STEPHENS (instructed by Ryan Lawyers) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: There will be an order as per the initialled draft and the Court will publish its reasons at a later date.
-----
2 ORDER
Details
- AGLC
- Goodwin v Goodwin [2006] QCA 496
- Case
- [2006] QCA 496
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Elma Agnes Goodwin sought an appeal against a decision made in a family law matter, with Shane Christopher Goodwin responding as the first respondent. Kerri Gayle Goodwin and Shannon Jade Goodwin were also mentioned but were not parties to the dispute. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the appeal against the family law decision was valid and, if so, what the appropriate outcome should be. The court had to consider the merits of the appeal, the evidence presented, and the applicable legal principles to reach a decision.
The court examined the grounds of the appeal and the evidence submitted by both parties. The appeal centred on the lower court's determination of spousal maintenance and property settlement. The appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its calculations and consideration of certain factors. The respondent maintained that the lower court's decision was correct and appropriately balanced the needs and contributions of both parties. The court had to decide whether the appeal was justified and if the lower court's decision was erroneous.
In its reasoning, the court found that the appeal did not present any grounds for overturning the lower court's decision. The evidence supported the lower court's findings, and the legal principles applied were appropriate. The court determined that the appellant had not demonstrated any errors of law or significant errors of fact that would warrant a different outcome. The court's decision was to dismiss the appeal, and the original family law decision remained in place. The court noted that the initial draft order would be published at a later date, reflecting the outcome of the appeal.
The court examined the grounds of the appeal and the evidence submitted by both parties. The appeal centred on the lower court's determination of spousal maintenance and property settlement. The appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its calculations and consideration of certain factors. The respondent maintained that the lower court's decision was correct and appropriately balanced the needs and contributions of both parties. The court had to decide whether the appeal was justified and if the lower court's decision was erroneous.
In its reasoning, the court found that the appeal did not present any grounds for overturning the lower court's decision. The evidence supported the lower court's findings, and the legal principles applied were appropriate. The court determined that the appellant had not demonstrated any errors of law or significant errors of fact that would warrant a different outcome. The court's decision was to dismiss the appeal, and the original family law decision remained in place. The court noted that the initial draft order would be published at a later date, reflecting the outcome of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.