Jeeves and Jeeves (No 2) - [2010] FamCA 284

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEEVES & JEEVES (NO. 2)

[2010] FamCA 284

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Application for stay pending appeal against interlocutory order – Onus of proof on the applicant is higher in a stay application against an interlocutory appeal than an appeal against a final order

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc. [1981] HCA 39; (1981) 148 CLR 170
B, M and Child Support Registrar [2003] FamCA 33
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Limited v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 8
Jennings Constructions Limited v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 84; (1986) 161 CLR 681
Nikolaidis v Legal Services Commissioner [2005] NSWCA 91
Rutherford and Rutherford [1989] FamCA 72; (1991) FLC 92-255
The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Myer Emporium Limited [1986] HCA 13; (1986) 160 CLR 220

APPLICANT:

Ms Jeeves

RESPONDENT:

Mr Jeeves

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

10167

2000

DATE DELIVERED:

19 APRIL 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE:

16 APRIL 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

MS MOLYNEUX QC WITH MR COMBES

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

J A MIDDLEMIS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR SWEENEY

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

TAUSSIG CHERRIE & ASSOCIATES

Orders

That the application in a case filed on 16 April 2010 by the wife is dismissed.
That the wife file and serve her written submissions relating to the substantive hearing by 4.00pm on 3 May 2010.
That the husband file and serve his written submissions in relation to the substantive proceedings by 4.00pm on 17 May 2010.
That the wife file and serve any reply to the husband’s submissions by 4.00pm on 24 May 2010.
That the costs of both parties be the subject of written submissions to be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 24 May 2010.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Jeeves & Jeeves is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10167 of 2000

MS JEEVES

Applicant

And

MR JEEVES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The wife has appealed against two rulings that I made after the close of the parties’ cases about the admissibility of some bank documents produced under subpoena.
When the proceedings were adjourned on 22 March 2010, I made orders for the filing of written submissions relating to the trial that had taken many days over almost one year. I made allowance in the timetable for the filing of submissions about the substantive issues. The wife seeks a stay of those orders pending the determination of the appeal against the rulings.
The application in a case seeking the stay order was filed on Friday 16 April 2010 and I heard argument from each party through their counsel on that same day.
The applicant seeking…

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 Jeeves and Jeeves (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jeeves and Jeeves (No 2) [2010] FamCA 284
Case: [2010] FamCA 284
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jeeves and Jeeves (No 2)*, Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia considered an application made by the wife. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed, but it appears to be a family law matter requiring a substantive hearing.

The court was required to determine the wife's application, the outcome of which is reflected in the orders made. The court also needed to establish a timetable for the parties to file and serve written submissions in preparation for the substantive hearing. Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Justice Cronin dismissed the wife's application. The court then set out a detailed schedule for the filing and service of written submissions by both parties, culminating in a deadline for replies. The court also ordered that written submissions regarding the costs of both parties were to be filed and served by a specified date.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application in a case filed on 16 April 2010 by the wife is dismissed.

That the wife file and serve her written submissions relating to the substantive hearing by 4.00pm on 3 May 2010.

That the husband file and serve his written submissions in relation to the substantive proceedings by 4.00pm on 17 May 2010.

That the wife file and serve any reply to the husband’s submissions by 4.00pm on 24 May 2010.

That the costs of both parties be the subject of written submissions to be filed and served by no later than 4.00pm on 24 May 2010.

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.