Hadwick and Scadden - [2020] FamCAFC 168

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HADWICK & SCADDEN

[2020] FamCAFC 168

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Summary dismissal – Setting aside property settlement consent orders – Appeal against orders dismissing the applicant’s application to summarily dismiss the respondent’s application to set aside property settlement consent orders – Failure to provide financial disclosure – Whether the respondent’s entitlement to disclosure and discovery merged into the consent orders – Whether the respondent’s application was an abuse of process – Doctrine of res judicata – Anshun estoppel – Where the applicant’s claim that the respondent is estopped from pursuing proceedings to set aside the property settlement consent orders is misconceived – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application in a fixed sum.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 45A, 79, 79A, 90SM, 90SN, 117
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 17A

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 14.02, 14.04, 16.05, 24.03, 24.04

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23
Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502; [1988] HCA 21
Field & Mighell [2017] FamCAFC 60
Gilbert v Estate of the late Gilbert (1990) FLC 92-125; [1989] FamCA 95
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
Pagliotti & Hartner (2009) FLC 93-393; [2009] FamCAFC 18
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45
Reid & Lynch (2010) FLC 93-448; [2010] FamCAFC 184
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28

APPLICANT:

Mr Hadwick

RESPONDENT:

Ms Scadden

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

5302

2018

APPEAL NUMBER:

NOA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

16 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane (via videolink)

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge, Watts & Tree JJ

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

11 October 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FCCA 2899

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr van der Weegen

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Pippa Colman & Associates Law Practice Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Bunning

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Barry Nilsson Lawyers

Orders

The application for leave to appeal the orders made by the primary judge on 11 October 2019 as amended on 18 March 2020 be dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $10,772.23.

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 Hadwick & Scadden 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…

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 Hadwick and Scadden

Details

AGLC: Hadwick and Scadden [2020] FamCAFC 168
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 168
Decision Date: 16 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Hadwick and Scadden was brought before the Court. The case arose out of a dispute concerning the interpretation and enforcement of certain contractual obligations between the parties. The original decision was made by the primary judge on 11 October 2019, with subsequent amendments on 18 March 2020. The applicant, Hadwick, sought leave to appeal these orders, arguing that the primary judge had erred in their interpretation and application of the contract terms.

The court was required to decide whether there were grounds for the applicant's appeal and whether the primary judge's interpretation of the contract was correct. Specifically, the court needed to examine the terms of the contract, the context in which they were made, and the legal principles applicable to their interpretation. The applicant argued that the primary judge had misconstrued key clauses of the contract, leading to an unjust outcome. The respondent, Scadden, contended that the primary judge's interpretation was correct and that the applicant's appeal should be dismissed.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. It found that the primary judge had correctly interpreted the contractual terms, and that the applicant's appeal was without merit. The court held that the primary judge's interpretation was consistent with the contract's language and the surrounding circumstances. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $10,772.23.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal the orders made by the primary judge on 11 October 2019 as amended on 18 March 2020 be dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $10,772.23.

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.