FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LINCH & LINCH | [2014] FamCAFC 69 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – NOTICE OF APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals property settlement orders – Where the husband challenges the Federal Magistrate’s assessment of the respective contributions of the parties, before, during and after cohabitation – Where error is demonstrated in the assessment of the initial contributions of the parties – Lack of adequate reasons – Where the orders on appeal include a superannuation splitting order in relation to the husband’s Superannuation Scheme pursuant to s 90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband was receiving a pension – Where the Federal Magistrate assessed the wife’s contributions to the husband’s superannuation at 15 per cent – Where the Federal Magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for arriving at his assessment – Where the Federal Magistrate also failed to take into account under FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – NOTICE OF APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal is successful on a question of law – Where it is appropriate each party bear their own costs – Costs Certificates granted pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for the appeal and rehearing. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – s 69 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 75(2) |
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – ss 6, 8 and 9
| AMS v AIF; AIF v AMS (1999) 199 CLR 160 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Linch |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Linch |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 4257 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 66 | of | 2012 |
| DATE DELIVERED:: | 24 April 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Finn, Strickland & Le Poer Trench JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 5 September 2013 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 2 May 2012 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2012] FMCAfam 384 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | In person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Gould |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Solari & Stock Lawyers |
Orders
The appeal be allowed.
The orders made by Federal Magistrate Foster (as his Honour then was) on
2 May 2012 be set aside.
The proceedings be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing.
Each party bear their own costs.
The Court grants to the appellant husband a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant husband in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant husband in relation…
Continue reading Linch & Linch
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Linch & Linch [2014] FamCAFC 69
- Case
- [2014] FamCAFC 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in assessing the contributions of the parties and in failing to provide adequate reasons for his assessment. The court also needed to consider whether the Federal Magistrate had appropriately accounted for the permanent reduction of the husband's future income due to the superannuation award. The court found that there was indeed an error in the assessment of the initial contributions, and that the Federal Magistrate's reasons were inadequate. Furthermore, the court determined that the Federal Magistrate had not considered the impact of the superannuation award on the husband's future income.
As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by the Federal Magistrate, and remitted the proceedings to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing. The court held that it would be appropriate for each party to bear their own costs for the appeal and rehearing. In addition, the court granted costs certificates to both parties under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth), allowing the Attorney-General to authorise payment of costs incurred by the parties during the appeal and rehearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made by Federal Magistrate Foster (as his Honour then was) on
2 May 2012 be set aside.
3. The proceedings be remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for rehearing.
4. Each party bear their own costs.
5. The Court grants to the appellant husband a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant husband in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant husband in relation to the appeal.
6. The Court grants to the respondent wife a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent wife in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent wife in relation to the appeal.
7. The Court grants to each of the parties a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to each of the parties in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant husband and the respondent wife in relation to the rehearing of the applications.
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.