Lane & Lane

Case [2016] FamCAFC 53

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANE & LANE [2016] FamCAFC 53

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Consent order – Where the appellant wife seeks to set aside consent orders made in     2003 – Whether the wife’s consent to the orders was obtained by duress – Where the husband deliberately suppressed evidence of the value of the parties’ assets – Whether the wife knew the value of the parties’ assets at the date of the orders – Where there was a miscarriage of justice – Where the trial judge adopted a flawed approach to s 79A and thereby erred in law – Where the value of the wife’s entitlement under the consent orders was incorrectly determined – Where error in calculation of the wife’s entitlement was immaterial – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the husband sought that the wife pay his costs of and incidental to the appeal if the appeal failed – Where some challenges were successfully made out – Where it is appropriate that each party bear their own costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): ss 75(2), 79(2), 79(4), 79A(1)(a) and 117
Anderson v Anderson (2000) FLC 93-016
Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Ebner & Pappas (2014) FLC 93-619
Gebert & Gebert (1990) FLC 92-137
Green & Kwiatek (1982) FLC 91-259
Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84
Holland & Holland (1982) FLC 91-243
In the marriage of Clifton and Stuart (1991) FLC 92-194
Korsky and Bright & Anor (No 2) (2007) FLC 93-352
Lowe v Harrington (1997) FLC 92-747
Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Rohde and Rohde (1984) FLC 91-592
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Suiker and Suiker (1993) FLC 92-436
Taylor and Taylor (1977) FLC 90-226
APPELLANT: Ms Lane
RESPONDENT: Mr Lane
FILE NUMBER: MLC 8674 of 2010
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 98 of 2013
DATE DELIVERED: 14 April 2016
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Murphy JJ
HEARING DATE: 28 April 2015
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 19 June 2013
LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FamCA 466

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Dickson QC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Lander & Rogers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Campton SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Phelps Reid Lawyers

Orders

  1. The appeal from the orders of Justice Loughnan made on 19 June 2013 is dismissed.

  2. There is no order as to costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lane & Lane 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 SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 98 of 2013
File Number: MLC 8674 of 2010

Ms Lane

Appellant

and

Mr Lane

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ainslie-Wallace and Ryan JJ

  1. Ms Lane (“the wife”) appeals against an order of Justice Loughnan of 19 June 2013 dismissing her…

Continue reading Lane & Lane

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lane & Lane [2016] FamCAFC 53
Case
[2016] FamCAFC 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lane & Lane, the wife sought to set aside consent orders made in 2003, arguing that her consent was obtained by duress. The husband had allegedly suppressed evidence of the value of the parties’ assets. The wife contended that she did not know the value of the assets at the date of the orders and that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had adopted a flawed approach to section 79A of the Family Law Act, which led to an erroneous calculation of the wife’s entitlement. Despite this error, it was found to be immaterial to the overall outcome.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the wife’s consent was indeed obtained through duress and if there was a miscarriage of justice due to the suppression of evidence. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge’s approach to section 79A was correct and if the error in calculating the wife’s entitlement was material. The court held that although there were errors in the trial judge’s approach and calculations, they did not impact the final outcome. The appeal was dismissed as the wife’s contentions did not meet the threshold for setting aside the consent orders.

The reasoning of the court focused on the nature of the wife’s consent and the impact of any errors in the trial judge’s approach. The court found that the wife’s allegations of duress were not substantiated, and any errors in the calculation of her entitlement did not affect the final outcome. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. Each party was left to bear their own costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal from the orders of Justice Loughnan made on 19 June 2013 is dismissed.

2.

There is no order as to costs.

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.