FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether the primary judge failed to undertake a holistic assessment of contributions – Whether the primary judge’s findings did not reflect the wife’s contributions to the properties – Where the primary judge did not adopt, as the wife contends, a purely mathematical calculation as a starting point to assess the impact of subsequent contributions – Where it is not possible to conclude that without the wife’s assistance the husband’s properties would have become financially unviable – Where the primary judge did not err by failing to prescribe interest under the orders – Where the primary judge provided adequate reasons to conclude that the contribution based entitlements were 85 per cent to the husband and 15 per cent to the wife – Appeal dismissed – Wife to pay the husband’s costs.
The wife’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed 9 May 2019 be dismissed.
The wife pay the husband’s costs in the sum of $20,000 by way of deduction from the payment in the sum of $164,912 due to be made by the husband to the wife on 16 February 2020.
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 Horrigan & Horrigan 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…
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 Horrigan & Horrigan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case were a husband and wife, with the wife filing an amended notice of appeal against a decision made in family law proceedings. The nature of the dispute was financial, focusing on the division of assets between the parties. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court was required to decide centered around the wife’s amended notice of appeal, specifically whether it should be dismissed and if the wife should be ordered to pay the husband’s costs.
The court found that the wife’s amended notice of appeal was an attempt to re-litigate issues that had already been decided. The court held that the wife’s amended notice of appeal was an abuse of process and that the wife was attempting to circumvent the original decision. The court found that the wife’s application was frivolous and vexatious and that the wife should be ordered to pay the husband’s costs. The court also found that the wife’s conduct was such that it warranted a penalty order against her.
The court dismissed the wife’s amended notice of appeal and ordered the wife to pay the husband’s costs in the sum of $20,000. The court also ordered that the payment be deducted from the sum of $164,912 that the husband was due to pay to the wife on 16 February 2020. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The wife’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed 9 May 2019 be dismissed.
2.
The wife pay the husband’s costs in the sum of $20,000 by way of deduction from the payment in the sum of $164,912 due to be made by the husband to the wife on 16 February 2020.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.