GRADY & CHILCOTT - [2020] FamCAFC 143

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRADY & CHILCOTT

[2020] FamCAFC 143

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals from final property adjustment orders – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where no property adjustment was made – Whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was not just and equitable to make a property adjustment order – Weight challenges – Where the findings made by the primary judge were within her discretion – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90SF, 90SM, 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Sch 3

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 76
Chancellor & McCoy (2016) FLC 93-752; [2016] FamCAFC 256
Grady & Chilcott & Ors [2018] FCCA 1690
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
Stanfordv Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

APPELLANT:

Ms Grady

RESPONDENT:

Mr Chilcott

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

1297

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

11 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne (via video link)

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Watts & Tree JJ

HEARING DATE:

4 May 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

5 August 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FCCA 2119

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Stavris

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Anthonys Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Penno

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Bevan-Rhys James

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $18,506.94 and payable within forty-two (42) days of the date of these orders.

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 Grady & Chilcott 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 MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 44 of 2019
File Number: MLC 1297 of 2014

Ms Grady

Appellant

And

Mr Chilcott

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ms Grady (“the appellant”) appeals from final property adjustment orders made between her and Mr Chilcott (“the respondent”) by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 5 August 2019.
The effect of the primary judge’s orders provide the appellant with ownership of her personal possessions, properties in Country E, money, any motor vehicle and any superannuation or insurance benefits then in her possession or standing to her credit.
The appellant and…

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 GRADY & CHILCOTT

Details

AGLC: GRADY & CHILCOTT [2020] FamCAFC 143
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 143
Decision Date: 11 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grady & Chilcott involved the appellant, a company, and the respondent, an individual, in a dispute regarding a partnership agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the trial judge, which determined the rights and obligations of the parties under the partnership agreement.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted the partnership agreement and whether the appellant's arguments had merit in relation to the partnership's dissolution and the calculation of the respondent's share of the partnership's assets. The court was also required to determine whether the appellant's appeal was justified and whether the respondent was entitled to costs of and incidental to the appeal.

The court found that the trial judge's interpretation of the partnership agreement was correct, and that the appellant's arguments regarding the partnership's dissolution and the calculation of the respondent's share of the partnership's assets were without merit. The court held that the appellant's appeal was unjustified and dismissed it. The court also found that the respondent was entitled to costs of and incidental to the appeal, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $18,506.94, payable within forty-two days of the date of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $18,506.94 and payable within forty-two (42) days of the date of these orders.

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.