James & Snipper - [2018] FamCAFC 235

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JAMES & SNIPPER AND ANOR

[2018] FamCAFC 235

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Treatment of tax debt – Where the husband challenged the wife’s credibility – Where the trial judge gave adequate consideration of matters under s 79(4) – Where the trial judge gave adequate reasons to justify making an adjustment under s 75(2) – Where no error on part of the trial judge demonstrated – Where no merits to grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the father appealed against an order providing for the children to spend time with him for one discrete period of 24 hours each fortnight – Where the father contended the trial judge intended to make an order providing for him to immediately spend three nights each alternate weekend with the children – Where no merit to ground of appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2)(b), 75(2)(h), 75(2)(k), 79(4)(d), 79(4)(e), 79(4)(f), 79(4)(g)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; [1990] HCA 47
DL v The Queen (2018) 356 ALR 197; [2018] HCA 26
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Sahrawi & Hadrami (2018) FLC 93-857; [2018] FamCAFC 170
Snipper & James and Ors [2018] FamCA 7
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588; [1999] HCA 3
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193

APPELLANT:

Mr James

1ST RESPONDENT:

Ms Snipper

2ND RESPONDENT:

Commissioner of Taxation

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid New South Wales

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

1913

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

3 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Aldridge & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

12 January 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FamCA 7

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Eardley

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Batey

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Harris Freidman Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Mr Kasep

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Commissioner of Taxation

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Did not participate

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
The respondent shall file and serve her written submissions on costs within 21 days of the date of these orders.
The appellant and the second respondent shall file and serve their written submissions in reply within 42 days of the date of these orders.

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 James & Snipper and Anor 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…

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 James & Snipper

Details

AGLC: James & Snipper [2018] FamCAFC 235
Case: [2018] FamCAFC 235
Decision Date: 3 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James & Snipper was an appeal heard in the Family Court of Australia. The husband, the appellant, contested the property settlement and parenting arrangements made by the trial judge. The central issue was whether the trial judge had correctly considered the wife's credibility in assessing the tax debt and the parenting arrangements. The wife, the respondent, argued that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and provided sufficient reasons for the orders made.

The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in treating the tax debt as a marital asset and whether the husband's challenge to the wife's credibility was justified. The court found that the trial judge had given adequate consideration to the matters under s 79(4) and provided adequate reasons for the adjustment under s 75(2). The court further concluded that the father's appeal regarding the parenting arrangements was without merit, as there was no evidence to suggest that the trial judge intended to make a different order regarding the children's time with him.

The appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the respondent to file her written submissions on costs within 21 days. The appellant and the second respondent were required to file and serve their written submissions in reply within 42 days. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

The respondent shall file and serve her written submissions on costs within 21 days of the date of these orders.

The appellant and the second respondent shall file and serve their written submissions in reply within 42 days of the date of these orders.

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.