Legal Research
Cases
Mirren and Mirren

Mirren and Mirren

Case [2019] FamCA 532 14 August 2019

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MIRREN & MIRREN

[2019] FamCA 532

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION TO REVIEW REGISTRAR’S ORDERS – applicant requiring an order extending time to bring the application – lapse of almost six years – applicant contending that orders were procured by the failure to disclose relevant information.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 37A, 79, 79A
Family Law Rules 2004 rr 1.14, 18.08

Avery v No 2 Public Service Appeal Board [1973] 2 NZLR 86
Badawi & Badawi [2017] FamCAFC 129
Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650
Bigg v Suzi (1998) 22 Fam LR 700
Burns v Grigg [1967] VR 871
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458
Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84
Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1978] VR 257
In the Marriage of Banhidy (1982) 8 Fam LR 82
In the Marriage of Clifton & Stuart (1990) 14 Fam LR 511
In the Marriage of Elliot & Willcox (1996) 20 Fam LR 567
In the Marriage of Gebert (1990) 14 Fam LR 62
In the Marriage of Holland (1982) 8 Fam LR 233
In the Marriage of Kokl (1981) 7 Fam LR 59
In the Marriage of McCabe (1995) 19 Fam LR 579
In the Marriage of Prowse (1994) 18 Fam LR 348
In the Marriage of Rohde & Rohde (1984) 10 Fam LR 56
In the Marriage of Sommerville (1999) 27 Fam LR 233
In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236
J.C. Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282
Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187
Korsky v Bright (No 2) (2007) 38 Fam LR 106
McKenna v McKenna (1971) 18 FLR 15
Mitchelson v Mitchelson (1979) 37 FLR 289
Murray v Director, Family Services (1993) 16 Fam LR 982
Pearson & Coli [2018] FamCA 295
Pelerman v Pelerman [2000] FamCA 881
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933
Redman & Redman [2013] FamCAFC 183
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1
Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks & Hicks [2018] FamCAFC 37
Tsiang & Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128
Turner v Bladin (1951) 82 CLR 463
Waterman & Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23

Dr Anthony Dickey QC, ‘Family Law’ (LBC Information Services, 3^rd ed, 1997)

APPLICANT:

Mr Mirren

RESPONDENT:

Ms Mirren

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

9896

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

14 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Wilson J

HEARING DATE:

16, 17 July, 12 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Dr R Ingleby

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Berger Kordos Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms E Swart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Kelly & McHale Family Lawyers

Orders

All relevant periods of time be extended thereby granting leave to review the decision of the Registrar made on 16 December 2013 under s 37A(9) and 37A(10) of the Family Law Act.
This proceeding is referred to the registrar for further case management.

Note:…

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 Mirren and Mirren

Details

AGLC: Mirren and Mirren [2019] FamCA 532
Case: [2019] FamCA 532
Decision Date: 14 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Mirren and Mirren*, Wilson J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for leave to review a decision of the Registrar made on 16 December 2013. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, beyond the fact that it concerned a decision made by the Registrar, is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant leave to review the Registrar's decision. This involved determining whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements for such an extension of time under sections 37A(9) and 37A(10) of the *Family Law Act*.

Wilson J granted the application, extending all relevant periods of time. This decision indicates that the Court found sufficient grounds to permit a review of the Registrar's earlier determination. Consequently, the proceeding was referred back to the registrar for further case management.

Orders

Orders of the court

All relevant periods of time be extended thereby granting leave to review the decision of the Registrar made on 16 December 2013 under s 37A(9) and 37A(10) of the Family Law Act.

This proceeding is referred to the registrar for further case management.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Mirren and Mirren [2019] FamCA 532

Most Recent Citation

Mirren & Mirren [2020] FamCAFC 94

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Mirren & Mirren
[2020] FamCAFC 94

…[2019] FamCA 532 [2019] FamCA 742…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

Tsiang & Wu and Ors
[2019] FamCAFC 128 Para 5

…that such failures of disclosure disentitled the husband to the remedy he sought under s 79A. [16][2017] FamCAFC 129 [17] [2016] FamCAFC 53 [18] [2019] FamCAFC 128…
Pearson and Coli
[2018] FamCA 295 Para 1

…support the making of the consent orders was prepared on behalf of the wife by her solicitors. [19] (1991) 172 CLR 84 [20][2013] FamCAFC 183 [21] [2018] FamCA 295…
Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks & Hicks and Anor
[2018] FamCAFC 37 Para 6

…have decided that the orders are appropriate based on them being just and equitable if materially false information has informed the inquiry. [14] [2018] FamCAFC 37 [15] [2000] FamCA 881…
Badawi & Badawi
[2017] FamCAFC 129 Para 5

…iple was given in that case. The wife submitted that such failures of disclosure disentitled the husband to the remedy he sought under s 79A. [16][2017] FamCAFC 129 [17] [2016] FamCAFC 53 [18] [2019] FamCAFC 128…
Waterman & Waterman
[2017] FamCAFC 23 Para 5

…iage of justice by reason of the “ suppression of evidence ” or by reason of “ any other circumstance ” for the purposes of s 79A(1)(a). [38] [2017] FamCAFC 23…
Lane & Lane
[2016] FamCAFC 53 Para 5

…ase. The wife submitted that such failures of disclosure disentitled the husband to the remedy he sought under s 79A. [16][2017] FamCAFC 129 [17] [2016] FamCAFC 53 [18] [2019] FamCAFC 128…
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52

…R 982 Pearson & Coli [2018] FamCA 295 Pelerman v Pelerman [2000] FamCA 881 Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933 Redman & Redman [2013] FamCAFC 183 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks & Hicks [2018] FamCAFC 37 Tsiang & Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128 Turner…
Barker v Barker
[2007] FamCA 13

…Avery v No 2 Public Service Appeal Board [1973] 2 NZLR 86 Badawi & Badawi [2017] FamCAFC 129 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650 Bigg v Suzi (1998) 22 Fam LR 700 Burns v Grigg [1967] VR 871 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australas…
Pelerman v Pelerman
[2000] FamCA 881 Para 6

…orders are appropriate based on them being just and equitable if materially false information has informed the inquiry. [14] [2018] FamCAFC 37 [15] [2000] FamCA 881…
Harris v Caladine
[1991] HCA 9

…2017] FamCAFC 129 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650 Bigg v Suzi (1998) 22 Fam LR 700 Burns v Grigg [1967] VR 871 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1978] VR 257 In the Marriage of Banhidy (1982) 8 Fam LR 82 In the Mar…
Gallo v Dawson
[1990] HCA 30

…[1973] 2 NZLR 86 Badawi & Badawi [2017] FamCAFC 129 Barker v Barker (2007) 36 Fam LR 650 Bigg v Suzi (1998) 22 Fam LR 700 Burns v Grigg [1967] VR 871 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Hughes v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co of Australasia Ltd [1978] VR 257 In the Marriage of…
Jess v Scott
[1986] FCA 473

…arriage of Sommerville (1999) 27 Fam LR 233 In the Marriage of Suiker (1993) 17 Fam LR 236 J.C. Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282 Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 Korsky v Bright (No 2) (2007) 38 Fam LR 106 McKenna v McKenna (1971) 18 FLR 15 Mitchelson v Mitchelson (1979) 37 FLR 289 Murray v Director…
Taylor v Taylor
[1979] HCA 38

…elerman v Pelerman [2000] FamCA 881 Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933 Redman & Redman [2013] FamCAFC 183 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks & Hicks [2018] FamCAFC 37 Tsiang & Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128 Turner v Bladin (1951) 82 CLR 463 Waterman…
Mitchelson v Mitchelson
[1979] FCA 48

…v Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282 Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 Korsky v Bright (No 2) (2007) 38 Fam LR 106 McKenna v McKenna (1971) 18 FLR 15 Mitchelson v Mitchelson (1979) 37 FLR 289 Murray v Director, Family Services (1993) 16 Fam LR 982 Pearson & Coli [2018] FamCA 295 Pelerman v Pelerman [2000] FamCA 881 Ratnam v Cuma…
Turner v Bladin
[1951] HCA 13

…(2012) 247 CLR 108 Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks & Hicks [2018] FamCAFC 37 Tsiang & Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128 Turner v Bladin (1951) 82 CLR 463 Waterman & Waterman [2017] FamCAFC 23…
JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey
[1931] HCA 15 Para 12

…court according to its terms was a concept altogether different to partly performing a contract where Statute of Frauds issues were involved. [26](1931) 45 CLR 282 [27] (1951) 82 CLR 463…
Redman & Redman
[2013] FamCAFC 183 Para 1

…h the parties relied to support the making of the consent orders was prepared on behalf of the wife by her solicitors. [19] (1991) 172 CLR 84 [20][2013] FamCAFC 183 [21] [2018] FamCA 295…
[1973] 2 NZLR 86
[1973] 2 NZLR 86 Para 1

…e would occur by the refusal of the application, as was held in Ratnam v Cumarasamy .[35] [29] (1990) 64 ALJR 458 at [2] [30] [1978] VR 257 [31][1973] 2 NZLR 86 [32] (1986) 12 FCR 187 [33] [1967] VR 871 [34] (1979) 37 FLR 289 [35] [1964] 3 All ER 933…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
37A, 79, 79A 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
1.14, 18.08 3 mentions