Hunt & Atkins - [2020] FamCAFC 57

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUNT & ATKINS AND ORS

[2020] FamCAFC 57

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the applicant husband seeks to expedite the respondent wife’s appeal against final property and spousal maintenance orders – Where matter has lengthy history – Where applicant has age‑related difficulties – Where expedition is variously supported or unopposed – Application granted.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94(2D)(j)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

APPLICANT:	Mr Hunt
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Ms Atkins

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr J Hunt

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Mr D Hunt

FOURTH RESPONDENT:

N Pty Ltd

FIFTH RESPONDENT:

T Pty Ltd

SIXTH RESPONDENT:

H Pty Ltd

SEVENTH RESPONDENT:

Mr EE Hunt

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

425

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

12 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ryan J

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

18 December 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 977

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Sexton Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Mills Oakley

Orders dated 11 march 2020

That the hearing of Appeal EA 10 of 2020 be expedited.
That the costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the appeal.

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 Hunt & Atkins and Ors 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 10 of 2020
File Number: SYC 425 of 2012

Mr Hunt

Applicant

And

Ms Atkins

First Respondent

And

Mr J Hunt

Second Respondent

And

Mr D Hunt

Third Respondent

And

N Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

And

T Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

And

H Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

And

Mr EE Hunt

Seventh Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By an Application in an Appeal filed on 12 February 2020, Mr Hunt (“the husband”) seeks an expedited hearing of his former wife’s, Ms Atkins’s (“the wife”), appeal against final property and spousal maintenance orders made on 18 December 2019 (“the orders”). The second to seventh respondents are six individuals and entities affected by the orders. The wife does not oppose expedition and the second to seventh respondents support it.
The orders provide, inter alia, that:
· the husband pay the wife $964,683 within two months (Order 3),
· in the event the husband fails to comply with Order 3, the disposition of certain “A” class shares held by three of the husband’s children from 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 Hunt & Atkins

Details

AGLC: Hunt & Atkins [2020] FamCAFC 57
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 57
Decision Date: 12 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr Hunt, the husband, who has applied to the Family Court of Australia to expedite the hearing of his former wife's appeal, Ms Atkins, against final property and spousal maintenance orders. The appeal was instituted by Ms Atkins on 15 January 2020, seeking to set aside the orders made on 18 December 2019 or alternatively for the matter to be remitted for rehearing before a judge of the Family Court. The husband filed his application for expedition on 12 February 2020. The appeal affects six other respondents, including the husband's sons and associated entities, who support the expedition of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should be expedited. The court considered the factors relevant to the decision under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A, which provides a guide for determining the priority of cases. The husband argued that expediting the appeal would mitigate the impact of prolonged litigation on his health, particularly considering his age and the difficulties he is experiencing in recalling events and giving evidence. The wife does not oppose the expedition, and the other respondents support it. The court found that expediting the appeal would avoid significant emotional and psychological trauma to the husband and acknowledged the potential impact of the prolonged litigation on his health. Therefore, the court concluded that an order for expedition was appropriate.

The court granted the husband's application for expedition on 11 March 2020, ordering that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. The court also ruled that the costs of the application would be costs in the appeal. The decision was made considering the husband's age-related difficulties, the length of the proceedings, and the impact of the prolonged litigation on the husband's health. The court found that expediting the appeal would reduce the impact of the litigation on the husband's health and well-being.

Orders