Laska & Garvey

[2023] FedCFamC1A 93

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Laska & Garvey [2023] FedCFamC1A 93   

Appeal from:	Laska & Garvey [2022] FedCFamC2F 1780
Appeal number(s):	NAA 16 of 2023
File number(s):	SYC 2667 of 2021
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	5 June 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Oral application to adduce further evidence – Where the affidavits were filed late – Unlikely to demonstrate error on part of the primary judge – Application refused.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:	CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
Number of paragraphs:	5
Date of hearing:	5 June 2023
Place:	Sydney
The Appellant:	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Williams KC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Barkus Doolan Winning

ORDERS

NAA 16 of 2023
SYC 2667 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS LASKA

Appellant

AND:

MR GARVEY

Respondent

order made by:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appellant’s oral application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE J:

1. The appellant seeks to rely on an affidavit of Ms S sworn on 1 June 2023 and Mr BC also sworn on 1 June 2023. The affidavits were lodged with the registry last Friday. They deal with the appellant’s work history and her shareholding.

2. The purpose of further evidence on an appeal, as explained in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, is to identify error on the part of the primary judge or to bolster the reasons.

3. I am quite unable to see a link between the subject matter of the affidavits which is historical and her Honour’s reasons which deal with the parties’ financial position at the time the matter was before her. I am therefore quite unable to see how they could demonstrate error on part of her Honour.

4. Moreover the affidavits were only filed and served very late last week in contravention of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) which require it to be done much earlier.

5. Leave to rely on the two affidavits is refused.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.

Associate:

Dated:       15 June 2023