Jeeves v Jeeves

[2011] FamCAFC 94

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEEVES & JEEVES [2011] FamCAFC 94

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Appeal against orders of the trial Judge dismissing applications by the wife to discharge orders for settlement of property made by consent pursuant to s 79A and to set aside a binding financial agreement entered into by the parties pursuant to s 90K – Not established that the trial Judge applied erroneous legal principles with respect to s 79A.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Disclosure – Where the wife’s applications before the trial Judge asserted material non-disclosures with respect to the business – Whether the trial Judge had erroneously found that the husband had not failed to disclose relevant evidence in relation to the likelihood of the activities of the business continuing beyond 2011 – In circumstances where the source documentation determinative of the parties’ rights in relation to the continuation of the business activities beyond 2011 was available to both parties’ valuers, not established that the husband failed to disclose relevant material or misled the wife in relation to that issue – Whether the husband’s asserted failure to disclose the improved trading results for the business vitiated the wife’s consent – In circumstances where the evidence before the trial Judge did not conclusively establish whether or not the husband had disclosed the improved trading results, established that the trial Judge erred in finding that the husband had made such disclosure – Not established that the non-disclosure was, or could reasonably have been, material to the wife’s consent – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by the trial Judge rejecting the tender of a bank file produced on subpoena – In circumstances where the trial Judge was entitled, on his findings of fact in relation to the documentation, to exercise his discretion to reject the documentation, and where it was not demonstrated that receiving these documents into evidence would have rendered erroneous the trial Judge’s conclusion in the substantive proceedings – Leave to appeal refused.

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Barker & Barker [2007] FamCA 13
Devries and Another v Australian National Railways Commission and Another (1993) 177 CLR 472
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] 52 NSWLR 705
Rutherford and Rutherford (1991) FLC 92-255
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others [1999] 160 ALR 588

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79A, 90K
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 133, 135

APPELLANT: Mrs Jeeves

RESPONDENT: Mr Jeeves

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10167 of 2000

APPEAL NUMBER(S):	SA	47	of	2010  &
SA	25	of	2010

DATE DELIVERED: 28 April 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Coleman, Ainslie-Wallace & Murphy JJ

HEARING DATE: 1 March 2011

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT…