Karlsson & Karlsson

Case [2020] FamCAFC 207

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KARLSSON & KARLSSON [2020] FamCAFC 207

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Summary dismissal – Where the primary judge summarily dismissed the appellant husband’s application to set aside property settlement consent orders – Weight challenges – Allegations of denial of procedural fairness and bias – Reasons given in short form pursuant to s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Findings open to the primary judge – Error of fact immaterial to the ultimate result – No error of law established – Leave to appeal dismissed – Husband to pay the respondent wife’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Adduce further evidence – Where the application was sent the evening before the appeal hearing – Where the wife did not have sufficient time to consider and make submissions on the application – Husband seeking to re-litigate questions of fact before the primary judge – Application dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 45A, 79A, 94(2A), 94AA, 106A, 117
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799; [1998] FamCA 14
Bretton & Bondai [2013] FamCAFC 168
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Ebner & Pappas (2014) FLC 93-619; [2014] FamCAFC 229
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54
Kennedy & Thorne (2016) FLC 93-737; [2016] FamCAFC 189
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No 2) (1996) 70 ALJR 541; [1996] HCA 14
Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd (t/as Highline Commercial Construction) v Blanalko Pty Ltd (2013) 42 VR 27 ; [2013] VSCA 158
Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34
Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037; [2000] FamCA 881
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28
Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85; [2017] HCA 49
Wernham & Campagnola [2012] FamCAFC 137
APPELLANT: Mr Karlsson
RESPONDENT: Ms Karlsson
FILE NUMBER: SYC 8036 of 2017
APPEAL NUMBER: EAA 26 of 2020
DATE DELIVERED: 25 August 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney (via video link)
JUDGMENT OF: Ainslie-Wallace J
HEARING DATE: 21 July 2020
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 29 January 2020
LOWER COURT MNC: [2020] FCCA 144

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: Mr Karlsson (Litigant in person)
THE RESPONDENT: Ms Karlsson (Litigant in person)

Orders

  1. The Application for leave to appeal the orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 29 January 2020 is refused.

  2. The Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dated


    20 July 2020 is dismissed.

  3. The appellant husband to pay the respondent wife’s costs in relation to the appeal fixed in the amount of $5,672, such sum to be paid to the wife directly from the funds presently held in a controlled money account by C Lawyers and be paid before any payment out of those funds to the husband.

Note: The…

Continue reading Karlsson & Karlsson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Karlsson & Karlsson [2020] FamCAFC 207
Case
[2020] FamCAFC 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Karlsson & Karlsson, the appeal was brought before the court by the husband, who sought to challenge the property settlement consent orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court. The husband’s application was summarily dismissed, and he now appeals the decision. The husband’s grounds for appeal include challenges to the weight given to certain evidence, allegations of denial of procedural fairness, and claims of bias against the primary judge.

The court examined whether the primary judge’s findings were open to them and whether any errors of fact or law were established. The court held that the findings were within the range of acceptable outcomes and that any errors of fact were immaterial to the ultimate result. The court also found that no error of law was established, and therefore the appeal was without merit. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The husband also sought to adduce further evidence in his appeal, but the application was sent to the wife the evening before the appeal hearing. The wife did not have sufficient time to consider and make submissions on the application. The court held that the husband was seeking to re-litigate questions of fact before the primary judge and dismissed the application. The husband was ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum of $5,672.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application for leave to appeal the orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 29 January 2020 is refused.

2.

The Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dated

20 July 2020 is dismissed.

3.

The appellant husband to pay the respondent wife’s costs in relation to the appeal fixed in the amount of $5,672, such sum to be paid to the wife directly from the funds presently held in a controlled money account by C Lawyers and be paid before any payment out of those funds to the husband.

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.