Kettle and Baker - [2012] FamCAFC 73

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KETTLE & BAKER

[2012] FamCAFC 73

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Consideration of dismissal of appeal – Where the Full Court had previously adjourned the appeal and made orders to enable the father to listen to audio recordings of the proceedings, and ordered the father file and serve a document identifying the portions of the transcript which he intended to rely on in the appeal – Where the father had already been granted an extension of time in which to comply with those orders –Where the father had neither applied nor sought to apply at the hearing for a further extension of time in which to comply with the orders – Where the father was notified in time of the consideration of dismissal of the appeal – Where the orders the subject of the appeal were procedural in nature – Where there was no substance in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004

Batey-Elton & Elton (No 2) [2008] FamCAFC 202
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Forbes & Bream (2008) 222 FLR 96
Gallo & Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Sampson & Hartnett (Provision of Transcript) [2010] FamCAFC 220

APPELLANT:

Mr Kettle

RESPONDENT:

Ms Baker

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Berck

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

6532

2009

APPEAL NUMBER:

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

1 June 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Coleman, May & Strickland JJ

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2012

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

8 December 2010

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2010] FamCA 1164

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

No appearance

Orders

The appeal numbered NA 3 of 2011 is dismissed pursuant to rule 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kettle & Baker has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 3 of 2011
File Number: BRC 6532 of 2009

Mr Kettle

Appellant

And

Ms Baker

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Coleman & May JJ

Introduction

As the appellant failed to comply with an order in relation to an appeal, this matter was listed for dismissal pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules (“the Rules”).
On 10 August 2011 the appeal together with an application of the appellant was listed for hearing. The order made on 10 August 2011 by the Full Court was as follows:
(1)That the Notice of Appeal filed 18 January 2011 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.
(2)Note the undertaking given to the Court by [Mr B] that:
“I will not, by any means communicate, publish or disseminate to, or discuss with or otherwise reveal to any person or entity the content…

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 Kettle and Baker

Details

AGLC: Kettle and Baker [2012] FamCAFC 73
Case: [2012] FamCAFC 73
Decision Date: 1 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kettle and Baker involved the appeal of a family law matter. The appellant, Kettle, sought to overturn a decision made by the Family Court of Australia, which had ruled in favour of the respondent, Baker, in a dispute over the distribution of assets following the dissolution of their marriage. The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly the sections relating to the equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage. The central question was whether the primary judge had correctly exercised their discretion in the division of the marital assets.

The court considered the principles established in previous case law, particularly the High Court's decision in *Merrett v Merrett*, which emphasised the importance of achieving an outcome that is just and equitable. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and the submissions made during the appeal. It was noted that the primary judge had given due consideration to the contributions made by each party to the marriage, as well as the future needs and circumstances of both parties. The court found that the primary judge had exercised their discretion reasonably and in accordance with the relevant legal principles. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Family Court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal numbered NA 3 of 2011 is dismissed pursuant to rule 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004.

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.