Legal Research
Cases
Mehta & Crimmins

Mehta & Crimmins

Case [2021] FCCA 1545 21 June 2021

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FCCA 1545

File number(s): PAC 6104 of 2017

Judgment of: JUDGE MYERS

Date of judgment: 21 June 2021

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – application of res judicata in spousal maintenance application – application for summary dismissal – permanent stay of proceedings – spousal maintenance application.

Short term marriage with no children where previous spousal maintenance application of wife was dismissed by consent at time of making final property orders. Wife now seeks spousal maintenance inter alia for the costs of obtaining a law degree.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(3), 60CA, 74, 75(3), 77A, 77A(1)(c), 77A(1)(d), 79, 79A, 81, 83, 117A(2)(b)

Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) ss 17A, 17A(3)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10

Cases cited:
Atkins v Hunt [2016] FamCAFC 230

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464

Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502

Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44

Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313

Isaacs v Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation [1958] SR NSW 69

Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446

Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council (1939) 2 K.B 426

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589

Reid v Lynch (2010) FLC 93-448

Rogers v Legal Services Commissioner of South Australia [1995] 64 SASR 572

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46

Other:

Kenneth Handley and George Spencer, Res Judicata (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4^th ed, 2009 UK)

Number of paragraphs: 103

Date of hearing: 5 March 2021

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O’Brien

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lawrence
ORDERS

PAC 6104 of 2017

BETWEEN:
MS MEHTA

Applicant

AND:
MR CRIMMINS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MYERS

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
JUDGE MYERS:
1.That the proceedings between Ms Mehta and Mr Crimmins, file number PAC6104/2017, be permanently stayed.

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).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Mehta & Crimmins is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
.
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a decision relating to an application for summary dismissal made in the matter of Mehta & Crimmins. The application is made by the Respondent Husband (Respondent) in respect of a spousal maintenance application brought by the Applicant Wife (Applicant). The application for summary dismissal is resisted by the Applicant.
The application that is sought to be summarily dismissed is that contained within the Applicant’s Amended Initiating Application filed on 19 November 2020, where the Applicant seeks Final Orders that, pursuant to section 74 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’),[1] the Respondent pay to the Applicant a lump sum…

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 Mehta & Crimmins

Details

AGLC: Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FCCA 1545
Case: [2021] FCCA 1545
Decision Date: 21 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Mehta & Crimmins*, heard by Judge Myers in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the wife, Ms Mehta, sought spousal maintenance from the husband, Mr Crimmins. This application followed a previous, dismissed application for spousal maintenance made by Ms Mehta at the time final property orders were made in their divorce proceedings. The marriage was of short duration and there were no children of the relationship. Ms Mehta's current application included a claim for maintenance to cover the costs of obtaining a law degree.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the doctrine of *res judicata* applied to Ms Mehta's current spousal maintenance application, and consequently, whether the proceedings should be permanently stayed. The Court was required to determine if the prior dismissal of the spousal maintenance application, by consent, at the time of the final property orders, precluded Ms Mehta from bringing a fresh application for spousal maintenance.

Judge Myers reasoned that the prior consent dismissal of the spousal maintenance application, made in conjunction with the final property orders, operated as an estoppel *per rem judicatam*. The Court found that the parties had reached a final resolution of all financial matters between them, including spousal maintenance, as evidenced by the consent orders. To allow a fresh application for spousal maintenance would undermine the finality of the previous orders and the principle of *res judicata*.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the proceedings between Ms Mehta and Mr Crimmins, file number PAC6104/2017, be permanently stayed.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

JUDGE MYERS:

1. That the proceedings between Ms Mehta and Mr Crimmins, file number PAC6104/2017, be permanently stayed.

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).

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FCCA 1545

Most Recent Citation

Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FedCFamC1A 73

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Mehta & Crimmins
[2021] FedCFamC1A 73

…FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FedCFamC1A 73 Appeal from: Mehta & Crimmins [2021] FCCA 1545 Appeal number(s): EAA 80 of 2021 File number(s): PAC 6104 of 2017 Judgment of: AINSLIE-WALLACE, ALDRIDGE & REES JJ Date of judgment: 29 November 2021…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Clayton v Bant
[2020] HCA 44 Para 6

…The High Court recently revisited the doctrine of res judicata in Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44 (‘ Clayton ’). [8] The plurality at paragraphs 50 to 51 identify the consequences of rending a final judgment in adversarial proceedings and discussed the doctrine of res judicata as it applies in Australia.[9] Edelman…
ATKINS & HUNT
[2016] FamCAFC 230 Para 17

…The Applicant relies upon the decision in Atkins v Hunt [2016] FamCAFC 230 where Murphy J held, at paragraph 52: First, and centrally, the liability for spousal maintenance does not come to an end upon the end of the marriage, nor necessarily when orders are made pursuant to Part VIII of the Act. While the court is r…
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd
[2013] UKSC 46 Para 1

…ngdom is found in the decision of Lord Sumpton in the United Kingdom Supreme Court in the matter of Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 (‘ Virgin Atlantic ’), where he described res judicata as “a portmanteau term, which is used to describe a number of different legal principles with…
Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
[1988] HCA 21 Para 5

…nd res judicata: see also Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 and Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502. In considering a plea of res judicata the question that must be determined is whether the cause of action which is raised in the second proceedings has alread…
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd
[1981] HCA 45 Para 5

…recognised that there is a clear distinction between issue estoppel and res judicata: see also Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 and Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502. In considering a plea of res judicata the question that must be determined is whether the…
Jackson v Goldsmith
[1950] HCA 22 Para 5

…or law is alleged or denied the existence of which is a matter necessarily decided by the prior judgment, decree or order.” In Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446, Fullagar J discussed the principles of res judicata. Although he dissented in that case, it was only as to the application of the principles to the fa…
Henderson v Henderson
[1948] HCA 15 Para 2

…lier proceedings (the ‘ Henderson v Henderson ’[6] principle). (6)There is a general procedural rule against abusive proceedings. [5] Ibid. [6] Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313 (‘ Henderson v Henderson ’).…
Blair v Curran
[1939] HCA 23 Para 5

…stances. The Australian Courts have been careful to distinguish between the doctrine of res judicata, and a plea of issue estoppel. In Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 at 532, Dixon J said: The distinction between res judicata and issue-estoppel is that in the first the very right or cause of action claimed or put i…
Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council
(1939) 2 KB 426 Para 42

…The elements of the doctrine of res judicata are derived from the decision in Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council (1939) 2 K.B 426, [2] and provide that parties are prevented from proceeding with the subsequent claim where the following elements are met: •The decision was judicial; •The decision was, in fact, pronounced; •The Court had juri…
Henderson v Henderson
(1843) 67 ER 313 Para 2

…‘ Henderson v Henderson ’[6] principle). (6)There is a general procedural rule against abusive proceedings. [5] Ibid. [6] Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313 (‘ Henderson v Henderson ’).…
[1939] 2 KB 426
[1939] 2 KB 426 Para 5

…d are likely to be particularly important for this purpose: see Ord v Ord [1923] 2 KB 432 at 440, and Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council [1939] 2 KB 426 at 437. Both those cases were cases of issue estoppel and were clearly treated as such, though I think, with great respect, that they both illustrate the unfor…
[1923] 2 KB 432
[1923] 2 KB 432 Para 5

…were raised and decided. Reasons given for the judgment pronounced are likely to be particularly important for this purpose: see Ord v Ord [1923] 2 KB 432 at 440, and Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council [1939] 2 KB 426 at 437. Both those cases were cases of issue estoppel and were clearly treated as such, thoug…
Rogers v Legal Services Commission of South Australia
134 ER 165 Para 5

…In Rogers v Legal Services Commissioner of South Australia (1995) 64 SASR 572, Lander J considered the principles of res judicata and nature of estoppel at 38:[7] [7] Rogers v Legal Services Commissioner of South Australia (1995) 64 SASR 572 [38]. In G S Bower and A K Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2 nd ed, 19…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
11, 44(3), 60CA, 74, 75(3), 77A, 77A(1)(... 13 mentions (from Para 2)
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth)
17A, 17A(3) 3 mentions (from Para 24)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
13.10 2 mentions (from Para 26)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
1 mention
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 23)

File number(s):	PAC 6104 of 2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE MYERS
Date of judgment:	21 June 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – application of res judicata in spousal maintenance application – application for summary dismissal – permanent stay of proceedings – spousal maintenance application. Short term marriage with no children where previous spousal maintenance application of wife was dismissed by consent at time of making final property orders. Wife now seeks spousal maintenance inter alia for the costs of obtaining a law degree.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(3), 60CA, 74, 75(3), 77A, 77A(1)(c), 77A(1)(d), 79, 79A, 81, 83, 117A(2)(b) Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) ss 17A, 17A(3) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10
Cases cited:	Atkins v Hunt [2016] FamCAFC 230 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502 Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 67 ER 313 Isaacs v Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation [1958] SR NSW 69 Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 Marginson v Blackburn Borough Council (1939) 2 K.B 426 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Reid v Lynch (2010) FLC 93-448 Rogers v Legal Services Commissioner of South Australia [1995] 64 SASR 572 Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 Other: Kenneth Handley and George Spencer, Res Judicata (LexisNexis Butterworths, 4^th ed, 2009 UK)
Number of paragraphs:	103
Date of hearing:	5 March 2021
Place:	Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr O’Brien
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Lawrence

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MYERS
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JUNE 2021