Hunter and Hunter - [2019] FamCA 40

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUNTER & HUNTER

[2019] FamCA 40

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of Registrar’s decision – where the relief sought in the husband’s Application was that service of his itemised cost account upon the wife be deemed valid pursuant to Rule 19.21 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), or in the alternative, that the time limited for service of the husband’s cost account upon the wife be extended – consideration of the phrase “after the end of the case” – where it is found that in this case “after the end of the case” is after the Full Court dismissed and disposed of the Second Respondent’s appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Hunter

RESPONDENT:

Ms Hunter

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

10255

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

30 January 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Hogan J

HEARING DATE:

25 January 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Kirk QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Hartley Healy

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Alexander

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Condon Charles Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Application in a Case filed 31 December 2018 to review the Registrar’s decision (delivered 24 December 2018) is allowed.
Orders 1 and 2 made on 24 December 2018 are set aside.
There be no order as to costs.

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 Hunter & Hunter 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10255 of 2011

Mr Hunter

Applicant

And

Ms Hunter

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By Application in a Case filed 31 December 2018, Mr Hunter seeks to review orders 1 and 2 made by Registrar Brooks on 24 December 2018. Such orders dismissed an Application in a Case he had filed on 1 August 2018 and ordered that he pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Application on a party and party basis in an amount assessed or agreed.
The Respondent to the application, Ms Hunter, seeks that the application for review is dismissed, with an order for costs made in her favour.
The power to review a decision made by a Registrar is to be found in section 37A(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(the Act), which provides that a party may apply to review a Registrar’s exercise of power. According to section 37A(10), the Court may review the Registrar’s exercise of power and may make such order as it…

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 Hunter and Hunter

Details

AGLC: Hunter and Hunter [2019] FamCA 40
Case: [2019] FamCA 40
Decision Date: 30 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter and Hunter (a firm) sought judicial review of a decision made by the Registrar on 24 December 2018. The specific nature of the dispute leading to the Registrar's decision is not detailed in the provided text, but the application to the court was filed on 31 December 2018. The matter came before Hogan J.

The primary legal issue before Hogan J was whether the Registrar's decision of 24 December 2018, including orders 1 and 2 made on that date, should be set aside. The court was required to determine the merits of the application for review brought by Hunter and Hunter.

Hogan J allowed the application for review. Consequently, the Registrar's orders 1 and 2 made on 24 December 2018 were set aside. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Application in a Case filed 31 December 2018 to review the Registrar’s decision (delivered 24 December 2018) is allowed.

Orders 1 and 2 made on 24 December 2018 are set aside.

There be no order as to costs.

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.