H & H - [2005] FamCA 805

[2005] FamCA 805

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT

OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY Appeal No. EA 73 of 2004

File No. CAF 1638 of 2002

BETWEEN:

Appellant Husband

-and-

Respondent Wife

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT

CORAM:  Bryant CJ, Finn and Coleman JJ
DATE OF HEARING:         8 November 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:     27 July 2005

APPEARANCES:

Mr Maurice of Counsel (instructed by Lessli Strong & Associates) appeared on behalf of the appellant husband.
Ms Tonkin of Counsel (instructed by Elrington Boardman Allport Lawyers) appeared on behalf of the respondent wife.

APPEAL SUMMARY

MATTER:  H and H
APPEAL NUMBER:  EA 73 of 2004
  (CAF 1638 of 2002)
CORAM:  Bryant CJ, Finn and Coleman JJ
DATE OF HEARING:  8 November 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:                 27 July 2005

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – RELOCATION – Whether the trial Judge’s findings in relation to his decision permitting the wife to relocate were supported by the evidence – Whether the trial Judge gave sufficient weight to the opinion of the expert that the wife ought not relocate – Whether the trial Juge erred in finding that the wife would not be able to meet the children’s needs were she not permitted to relocate – Whether the trial Judge gave sufficient weight to the impact that permitting the wife and children to relocate would have on the relationship between the children and the husband – Whether the trial Judge erred in making particular findings about the level of support the wife would receive should she be permitted to relocate – RESIDENCE – CONTACT – Whether the trial Judge failed to address the husband’s application for joint residence, or erred in finding that the husband conceded the wife was the primary parent or gave insufficient reasons for rejecting the joint residence application of the husband.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – CONTRIBUTIONS – Whether the trial Judge gave sufficient reasons for his assessment of the parties’ contribution – Whether the trial Judge gave sufficient weight to the husband’s initial contributions of real estate and savings – SECTION 75(2) ADJUSTMENT – Whether the trial Judge erred in making a 15% adjustment in the wife’s favour – Whether the trial Judge gave sufficient reasons for making the adjustment that he did.

Caselaw cited:

U v U (2002) FLC 93-112

A v A (Relocation Approach) (2000) FLC 93-035

AMS v AIF; AIF v AMS (1999) FLC 92-852

Appeal against orders in relation to children’s matters dismissed.

Appeal against orders in relation to property settlement matters found to have substance but stood over for further consideration pending the receipt of submissions concerning a re-exercise of the discretion by the Full Court or a re-trial.

Directions made for the filing of written submissions.

This is an appeal by the husband against all orders made by Faulks J (as he then was) on 27 May 2004 in proceedings between the husband and the wife relating to the future…

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 H & H

Details

AGLC: H & H [2005] FamCA 805
Case: [2005] FamCA 805
Decision Date: 27 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between H and H. The nature of the dispute, and the specific orders sought by the parties, are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issues before the Full Court involved the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and potentially related principles of property settlement and spousal maintenance. The court was required to determine the correct legal framework for assessing the parties' financial positions and entitlements.

The court's reasoning likely involved a careful consideration of established case law and statutory provisions governing family law matters. It would have analysed the evidence presented by both parties to reach its conclusions on the legal issues. The specific principles applied would depend on the precise nature of the dispute, but would generally encompass principles of fairness, equity, and the legislative objectives of the *Family Law Act*.

The provided text does not contain information regarding the final orders or outcome of the appeal.

Orders