Marcin v Marcin

Case [2021] HCASL 158


MARCIN

v

MARCIN

[2021] HCASL 158
P20/2020

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia does not raise any issue of principle suitable for determination by this Court. Further, given the lengthy delays, the already remitted hearing, and the size of the asset pool, a grant of special leave to appeal would not be in the interests of justice. The application should be dismissed.

  2. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

P.A. Keane J.J. Edelman
12 August 2021

Continue reading Marcin v Marcin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Marcin v Marcin [2021] HCASL 158
Case
[2021] HCASL 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marcin v Marcin, the applicant sought special leave to appeal against a decision made by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. The primary focus of the dispute was the division of assets between the parties following their divorce. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of whether the case raised any matters of principle suitable for determination by the High Court and whether granting special leave to appeal would be in the interests of justice. The court had to consider the delays in the proceedings, the remitted hearing, and the substantial size of the asset pool as part of its decision-making process.

The court concluded that the application did not present any issue of principle suitable for determination by the High Court. Furthermore, the extensive delays, the remitted hearing, and the significant size of the asset pool led the court to determine that granting special leave to appeal would not be in the interests of justice. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and it was directed that the Registrar should prepare, sign, and seal the order dismissing the application. This decision was made on August 12, 2021, by Keane and Edelman.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.