MCG -v- JM [2016] WASCA 75

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 75
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	06/05/2016
Case No:	CACV:135/2014	Heard:	12 APRIL 2016
Coram:	MARTIN CJ NEWNES JA MITCHELL J	Delivered:	12/04/16
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MCG JM
Catchwords:	Appeals Appeal from decision of family law magistrate under Family Court Act 1997 (WA) Whether decision interlocutory or final Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal
Legislation:	Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 205ZG, s 205ZH, s 205ZJ, s 210A
Case References:	Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 246 CDW v LVE [2015] WASCA 247 Hall v The Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MCG -v- JM [2016] WASCA 75 CORAM : MARTIN CJ

NEWNES JA

MITCHELL J

HEARD : 12 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 12 APRIL 2016 PUBLISHED : 6 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 135 of 2014 BETWEEN : MCG

Appellant

AND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - 150 TERRACE ROAD

Coram : MAGISTRATE MORONI

Citation : MCG v JM [2014] FCWAM 223

File No : PTW 3264 of 2009

Catchwords:

Appeals - Appeal from decision of family law magistrate under Family Court Act 1997 (WA) - Whether decision interlocutory or final - Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 205ZG, s 205ZH, s 205ZJ, s 210A

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms R G Davies

Respondent : Mr B W Ashdown

Solicitors:

Appellant : Preston Law

Respondent : Lewis Blyth & Hooper

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 246
CDW v LVE [2015] WASCA 247
Hall v The Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423

MARTIN CJ

1 (This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 12 April 2016 and has been edited from the transcript.)

2 The appellant, MCG, appeals to this court against a decision made by a family law magistrate dismissing her application to set aside orders with respect to property settlement made by the Family Court of Western Australia with the consent of the parties pursuant to s 205ZG of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) (Act).

3 The application to set aside those orders was made pursuant to s 205ZH of the Act. Because the appellant and the respondent have never been married, issues with respect to the settlement of property interests following the termination of their relationship are governed by the Act rather than by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In CDW v LVE,1 this court considered the extent of its jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the decisions of family law magistrates in circumstances such as these.

4 For the reasons enunciated in that case,…

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 MCG v JM

Details

AGLC: MCG v JM [2016] WASCA 75
Case: [2016] WASCA 75
Decision Date: 6 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MCG versus JM arose from a dispute concerning the interpretation of a family law magistrate's decision under the Family Court Act 1997 in Western Australia. The central issue was whether the magistrate's decision was interlocutory or final, and consequently, whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal was brought by the respondent, JM, who sought to challenge the magistrate's decision on several grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the classification of the family law magistrate's decision as either interlocutory or final. This distinction is crucial as it determines the appropriate avenue for appeal and the extent of the appellate court's powers. The respondent argued that the magistrate's decision was interlocutory and thus appealable, while the applicant contended that it was a final order, precluding appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court had to determine the nature of the decision and assess the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Appeal.

In considering the nature of the magistrate's decision, the Court of Appeal examined the specific language and context of the order. The court concluded that the decision was indeed a final order, which meant that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court emphasised that the distinction between interlocutory and final orders is pivotal and must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the implications of the order and the intent of the parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.