Jeeves and Jeeves (No 3) - [2010] FamCA 488

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEEVES & JEEVES (NO. 3)

[2010] FamCA 488

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Section 79A and S 90K application – Orders made by consent when wife represented by lawyers and had assistance from professional advisers including valuer – Wife asserts that husband misrepresented evidence to valuers – Assertion rejected – Wife asserts that husband did not provide her with details of nature and duration of his entitlement to use of land for quarrying – Assertion rejected – Wife asserts that husband misrepresented position concerning capacity of the business to increase production and that he had no intention of increasing production – Assertion rejected – Wife asserts that husband had withheld information about an application to extend his work authority on land – Assertion rejected

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 (Vic)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Barker & Barker [2007] FamCA 13
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Burns v Burns [2004] EWCA Civ 1258
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Molier and Van Wyk (1980) FLC 90-911
Morrison v Morrison (1995) FLC 92-573
Petersen v. Moloney (1951) HCA 57
Public Trustee (as executor of the estate of Gilbert) v Gilbert (1991) FLC 92-211
Simon v. Vincent J. O’Gorman Pty. Ltd. (1979) 41 FLR 95
Suiker (1993) FLC 92-436
Taylor v Taylor (1977) FLC 90-226
Woodcock & Woodcock (1997) FLC 92-739

APPLICANT:

Ms Jeeves

RESPONDENT:

Mr Jeeves

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

10167

2000

DATE DELIVERED:

18 June 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE:

25, 26 & 27 May 2009; 6 July 2009; 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 August 2009; 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 MARCH 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

MS MOLYNEUX QC WITH MR COMBES

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

JA MIDDLEMIS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR SWEENEY

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

TAUSSIG CHERRIE & ASSOCIATES

Orders

That save as to any applications for costs, the application of the wife filed 28 December 2006 and the response thereto filed by the husband on 25 January 2007 be dismissed.
That any application for costs be by way of written submission accompanied by either an affidavit as to facts relied upon or by reference to any affidavit already filed, to be filed and served no later than 4 pm on 25 June 2010 and any reply thereto be filed and served by no later than 4 pm on 9 July 2010 and, save as to any circumstance relating to disputed evidence as to the facts upon which the application is based, the determination of such applications be heard and determined in chambers.
Certify for the attendance of counsel including in the case of the wife, senior counsel and two counsel.

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

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 3)

Details

AGLC: Jeeves and Jeeves (No 3) [2010] FamCA 488
Case: [2010] FamCA 488
Decision Date: 18 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jeeves and Jeeves (No 3)*, Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife filed on 28 December 2006 and the husband's response filed on 25 January 2007. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but it concerned applications made by the wife and the husband's response thereto.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the wife's application and the husband's response. The court was required to decide whether to grant or dismiss these applications based on the evidence and submissions presented.

Justice Cronin dismissed the wife's application and the husband's response. The court then made orders regarding the process for any applications for costs, requiring written submissions accompanied by affidavits or references to existing affidavits, with specific filing and service deadlines. The determination of costs applications was to be heard and determined in chambers, except where disputed evidence related to the facts underpinning the application. The court also certified for the attendance of counsel, including senior counsel and two counsel for the wife.

Orders

Orders of the court

That save as to any applications for costs, the application of the wife filed 28 December 2006 and the response thereto filed by the husband on 25 January 2007 be dismissed.

That any application for costs be by way of written submission accompanied by either an affidavit as to facts relied upon or by reference to any affidavit already filed, to be filed and served no later than 4 pm on 25 June 2010 and any reply thereto be filed and served by no later than 4 pm on 9 July 2010 and, save as to any circumstance relating to disputed evidence as to the facts upon which the application is based, the determination of such applications be heard and determined in chambers.

Certify for the attendance of counsel including in the case of the wife, senior counsel and two counsel.

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.