Lundquist & Lundquist

Case [2024] FedCFamC1A 219

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Lundquist & Lundquist [2024] FedCFamC1A 219

Appeal from: Lundquist & Lundquist(No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1002
Appeal number(s): NAA 195 of 2024
File number(s): SYC 7577 of 2022
Judgment of: RIETHMULLER J
Date of judgment: 20 November 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Divorce Order – Where the wife argues Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – Property settlement hearing completed in Australia with judgment reserved – Where the wife seeks to delay the divorce until property settlement orders are made – Where wife is pursuing divorce proceedings in the UK – Where wife claims there are tax implications in the UK but provides no evidence – No discretion to refuse divorce application – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 48

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), s 26

Cases cited:

Bakshi & Mahanta (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 90

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1988] HCA 76

Dobson & Londen (2005) FLC 93-225; [2005] FamCA 479

Falk and Falk (1977) FLC 90-247; [1977] FamCA 46

Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1976] HCA 63

Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; [1996] HCA 51

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17

RAF & MMF [2005] FamCA 497

Number of paragraphs: 40
Date of hearing: 31 October 2024
Place: Parramatta
The Appellant: Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms McMahon
Solicitor for the Respondent: Cominos Family Lawyers

ORDERS

NAA 195 of 2024
SYC 7577 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MS LUNDQUIST

Appellant
AND:

MR LUNDQUIST

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Appeal NAA 195 of 2024 be dismissed.

2.The appellant’s Application in an Appeal filed 30 October 2024 be dismissed.

3.The matter be relisted on 6 December 2024 at 10.00am for arguments as to costs.

4.The respondent file and serve any affidavits on which he intends to reply on with respect to the costs argument within seven days of the date of these orders and the appellant is to file and serve any affidavits she intends to reply on with respect to the costs argument within fourteen days of the date of these orders.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish…

Continue reading Lundquist & Lundquist

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lundquist & Lundquist [2024] FedCFamC1A 219
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1A 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms. Lundquist, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision from a lower court concerning a divorce application brought by her husband, Mr. Lundquist, the respondent. The crux of the dispute was whether the Australian court had jurisdiction to grant a divorce, given that Ms. Lundquist was also pursuing divorce proceedings in the UK and argued that Australia was an inappropriate forum. The property settlement hearing had been completed, but the judgment was reserved. Ms. Lundquist also sought to delay the divorce proceedings in Australia until the property settlement orders were made. The appeal was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Australian court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce application and if there were valid grounds to delay the proceedings. The court examined whether there were any compelling reasons to prevent the divorce from proceeding in Australia, particularly in light of the wife's pursuit of similar proceedings in the UK. The court also considered whether there was any evidence to support the wife's claim regarding tax implications in the UK. The court concluded that there was no valid reason to refuse the divorce application, and therefore, the appeal had no merit.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that there were no grounds to refuse the divorce application. The wife's argument that Australia was an inappropriate forum lacked sufficient evidence to support the claim. Additionally, there was no discretion to delay the divorce proceedings pending the outcome of the property settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the matter to be relisted for a costs argument. The respondent was directed to file and serve any relevant affidavits within seven days, while the appellant had fourteen days to do the same.

The court's final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, the appellant's application in the appeal be dismissed, and the matter be relisted for a costs argument. The respondent was required to file and serve any affidavits concerning the costs argument within seven days of the order, and the appellant within fourteen days. The form of the order was subject to review and potential variation as per the relevant court rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 195 of 2024

SYC 7577 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS LUNDQUIST

Appellant

AND:

MR LUNDQUIST

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

RIETHMULLER J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Appeal NAA 195 of 2024 be dismissed.

2. The appellant’s Application in an Appeal filed 30 October 2024 be dismissed.

3. The matter be relisted on 6 December 2024 at 10.00am for arguments as to costs.

4. The respondent file and serve any affidavits on which he intends to reply on with respect to the costs argument within seven days of the date of these orders and the appellant is to file and serve any affidavits she intends to reply on with respect to the costs argument within fourteen days of the date of these orders.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

Ground 7 (and Ground 5(f)) have no merit.CONCLUSIONS As the appellant has not made out a ground of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed. The respondent sought costs but was unable to set out the argument prior to the delivery of the appeal judgment as there are claims concerning offers that may have been made. I will direct that the matter be relisted for a costs argument with directions as to the filing of affidavit material.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.