Hakim & Salim

The case of Hakim & Salim involved an appeal against interim property orders made by the primary judge. The appellant, Mr Hakim, sought leave to appeal certain orders and challenged their validity on several grounds, including whether the primary judge erred in failing to identify the source of power relied upon in making an order for partial property settlement. The first respondent, Ms Salim, and the second respondent, Ms Noor, were also parties to the proceedings. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, in its appellate jurisdiction, heard the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in making the orders, whether the characterisation of the partial property order should have been left to the agreement of the parties or the final hearing, and if there was a denial of procedural fairness. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the reasons provided by the primary judge. The court found that the appellant had not established an error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion, but did find that there was a denial of procedural fairness.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside certain orders and amending others. The court found that the primary judge's failure to identify the source of power relied upon in making the orders did not constitute an error, but did find that the primary judge's decision to leave the characterisation of the partial property order to the agreement of the parties or the final hearing was an error. The court also found that the primary judge's failure to give the appellant an opportunity to respond to certain evidence presented by the respondents constituted a denial of procedural fairness. The court set aside the affected orders and granted the appellant leave to appeal.

The court ordered that the appellant file and serve written submissions in relation to the issue of costs within fourteen days of the date of the order. The first respondent was ordered to file and serve written submissions in response within fourteen days of receipt of the appellant's submissions. The appellant could then file and serve written submissions strictly in reply within seven days of receipt of the first respondent's submissions. The form of the order was subject to the entry in the Court's records and could be subject to review or variation in accordance with the relevant rules.