MANUEL & PINNER - [2018] FCCA 735

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANUEL & PINNER

[2018] FCCA 735

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Amendment to Orders pursuant to the Slip Rule – considerations in relation to the role of Courts “to quell controversies” on a final basis – consideration given to use of the limited public resources of Courts – proper use of the Slip Rule where the error in the Court’s Orders properly rested with the Court – general observations regarding “costs” in such circumstances.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Rules (Cth), pt.16, r.16.05

Cases cited:

AON Risk Services Australia Pty Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd (2016) 331 ALR 1

D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid & Anor (2005) 223 CLR 1

Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited (2013) 250 CLR 303
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Westsub Discounts Pty Ltd v Idaps Australia Ltd (No.2) (1990) 94 ALR 310

J. Tarrant, Amending Final Judgments and Orders (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2010)

Applicant:

MR MANUEL

Respondent:

MS PINNER

File Number:

CAC 1658 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Neville

Hearing date:

Decided on written submissions

Date of Last Submission:

8 November 2017

Delivered at:

Canberra

Orders pronounced:

2 March 2018

Date delivered:

27 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Evans Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Farrar Gesini Dunn

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Pursuant to Rule 16.05 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the Orders of the Court made on 24 March 2017 and 12 July 2017 be amended and be made on a final basis.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

Pursuant to Orders of the Court made on 11 October 2017, the Father’s Contravention Application be listed for a half day Contravention Hearing on 2 October 2018 at 2:00pm in CANBERRA.
The parties are to file and serve an outline of submissions of no more than 2 pages, by close of business on 28 September 2018, in relation to the contraventions alleged by the Father.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Manuel & Pinner is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 1658 of 2013

MR MANUEL

Applicant

And

MS PINNER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 2^nd March 2018, the Court delivered oral reasons in relation to the status of Orders, previously made on 12^th July 2017, concerning four discrete issues. The reasons that follow have been revised from the transcript.
The present contest, as just indicated, relates to the status of earlier-made Orders of the Court. Formally, it is an Application by the Father to have the July 2017 Orders amended under the “Slip Rule.” But there is actually more to it than this relatively straight-forward, procedural matter for determination, and not only because of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MANUEL & PINNER and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FCCA 735
Decision Date: 27 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Manuel and Pinner. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause within a deed of settlement, specifically regarding the calculation of a payment due from Pinner to Manuel. The matter came before Neville J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the phrase "net proceeds" as used in the settlement deed referred to the gross amount received by Pinner or that amount less certain specified deductions. This interpretation was critical to determining the quantum of the payment owed by Pinner to Manuel.

Neville J reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "net proceeds" in a commercial context implies a deduction of expenses incurred in generating those proceeds. His Honour considered the surrounding provisions of the deed and the purpose of the settlement agreement, concluding that the parties intended for Pinner to account for the actual financial outcome after reasonable expenses. The Court applied principles of contractual interpretation, favouring a construction that reflected the commercial realities of the transaction.

The Court ordered that Pinner was liable to pay Manuel an amount calculated by deducting specified expenses from the gross receipts, as per the Court's interpretation of the deed.

Orders