Manotis & Manotis (No 2) - [2016] FamCAFC 232

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANOTIS & MANOTIS AND ORS (NO 2)

[2016] FamCAFC 232

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against orders made in 2012 – There is no substantial issue to be raised on the proposed appeal – The explanation for the delay is not adequate and the respondents would be prejudiced – Order for the applicant to pay costs in fixed sums.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 94AAA, s 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 1.14

Joshua v Joshua (1997) FLC 92-767

APPLICANT:

Mr Manotis

1^ST RESPONDENT:

Ms Manotis

2^ND RESPONDENT:

Mr Matthews

3^RD RESPONDENT:

Mr Blanco

4^TH RESPONDENT:

X Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

PTW

2347

2004

APPEAL NUMBER:

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

17 November 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Perth

PLACE HEARD:

Perth

JUDGMENT OF:

Thackray J

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

In person

THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE 3^RD RESPONDENT:

Mr Guerrini

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3^RD RESPONDENT:

Lawley Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE 4^TH RESPONDENT:

Mr Heathershaw

SOLICITOR FOR THE 4^TH RESPONDENT:

X Lawyers

Orders

The application for an extension of time in which to appeal against the order made by Magistrate Andrews on 2 May 2012 be dismissed.
The applicant contribute to the costs of the third respondent in the sum of $3,000 and to the costs of the fourth respondent in the sum of $750.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Manotis & Manotis and Ors (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH

Appeal Number: WA 19 of 2016
File Number: PTW 2347 of 2004

Mr Manotis

Applicant

And

Ms Manotis

1^st Respondent

And

Mr Matthews

2^nd Respondent

And

Mr Blanco

3^rd Respondent

And

X Lawyers

4^th Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application before the court this afternoon is an Application in an Appeal by Mr Manotis (“the applicant”) seeking an extension of time to appeal the orders made by Magistrate Andrews on 2 May 2012.
The background to the application is well known to most of those who are participating in the proceedings and it will not be helpful for me to attempt to trace it. All I need say is that the order made by the Magistrate on 2…

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 Manotis & Manotis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Manotis & Manotis (No 2) [2016] FamCAFC 232
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 232
Decision Date: 17 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the court was made by Manotis & Manotis, seeking an extension of time to appeal an order made by Magistrate Andrews on 2 May 2012. The application was opposed by several respondents, including the third and fourth respondents, who were to be awarded costs if the application was dismissed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issue at the core of this case was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the order. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, the principles of judicial discretion, and the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court examined whether the applicant had a good reason for the delay in lodging the appeal and whether the delay would cause any injustice to the respondents.

In assessing the application, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of judicial discretion. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a good reason for the delay in lodging the appeal, and that the delay would cause an injustice to the respondents. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered the applicant to contribute to the costs of the third and fourth respondents. The amount of costs awarded to each respondent reflected the degree of opposition and the complexity of the case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered the applicant to contribute to the costs of the third and fourth respondents. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a good reason for the delay in lodging the appeal, and that the delay would cause an injustice to the respondents. The costs awarded reflected the degree of opposition and the complexity of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time in which to appeal against the order made by Magistrate Andrews on 2 May 2012 be dismissed.

The applicant contribute to the costs of the third respondent in the sum of $3,000 and to the costs of the fourth respondent in the sum of $750.

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

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.