Jamine & Jamine (No.2)
Case
•
[2012] FamCAFC 104
•19 July 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jamine & Jamine (No.2) [2012] FamCAFC 104
[2012] FamCAFC 104
19 July 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Jamine & Jamine (No.2) involved an appeal against orders for property settlement made by the trial Judge, Justice Cronin. The husband argued that the 5 per cent adjustment made pursuant to s 75(2) due to his non-disclosure was excessive. Additionally, he contested the order that required him to resign as trustee of a trust over a one-half interest in a property held for the benefit of their adult disabled child. The wife sought costs following a two-day delay in the commencement of the trial, attributed to the husband's inability to attend due to medical reasons. The husband argued that the appeal against his removal as trustee was not frivolous or vexatious, and that there was a financial disparity between him and the wife.
The court was required to decide whether the trial Judge's adjustment of 5 per cent was within his discretion under s 75(2). It also had to determine if the Judge's decision to remove the husband as trustee was within his discretion under Part VIII of the Family Law Act. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the trial Judge's decision to order costs was within his discretion, given the husband's inability to attend the trial and the wife's financial inconvenience.
The court found that the 5 per cent adjustment made by the trial Judge was within the range of his discretion, considering the husband's non-disclosure. The court also held that the trial Judge's decision to remove the husband as trustee was within his discretion, as there was a relevant connection between the exercise of power under Part VIII and the exercise of the power to remove a trustee. The court further found that the trial Judge's decision to order costs was within his discretion, as the husband's inability to attend the trial caused a two-day delay, and the wife should not be financially inconvenienced by this.
The appeal against the orders of the Honourable Justice Cronin made on 19 September 2011 and 3 November 2011 were dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of, and incidental to, the appeals as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.
The court was required to decide whether the trial Judge's adjustment of 5 per cent was within his discretion under s 75(2). It also had to determine if the Judge's decision to remove the husband as trustee was within his discretion under Part VIII of the Family Law Act. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the trial Judge's decision to order costs was within his discretion, given the husband's inability to attend the trial and the wife's financial inconvenience.
The court found that the 5 per cent adjustment made by the trial Judge was within the range of his discretion, considering the husband's non-disclosure. The court also held that the trial Judge's decision to remove the husband as trustee was within his discretion, as there was a relevant connection between the exercise of power under Part VIII and the exercise of the power to remove a trustee. The court further found that the trial Judge's decision to order costs was within his discretion, as the husband's inability to attend the trial caused a two-day delay, and the wife should not be financially inconvenienced by this.
The appeal against the orders of the Honourable Justice Cronin made on 19 September 2011 and 3 November 2011 were dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of, and incidental to, the appeals as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Radcliffe & Marsters (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1787
Cases Citing This Decision
34
Stanton & Stanton
[2021] FamCA 630
Halstron & Halstron
[2021] FamCA 437
HUA & LIU
[2019] FamCA 732
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Kannis & Kannis
[2002] FamCA 1150
Miller v Cameron
[1936] HCA 13
Miller v Cameron
[1936] HCA 13