FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NEVILL & NEVILL | [2016] FamCAFC 41 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – forum – where property applications made in Australia and in New Zealand – application for stay of Australian proceedings under Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – where correct test is “more appropriate forum test” not the common law “clearly inappropriate forum” test – where the trial judge determined that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum to determine the dispute – consideration of factors identified in s 19(2) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – where no merit found in any of the grounds of appeal – appeal dismissed – costs ordered. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) Part 3, ss 3, 4, 17(1), 19(1) and 19(2) Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum, Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 2009 (Cth) |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Nevill |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Nevill |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 2103 | of | 2015 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | NA | 82 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 17 March 2016 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | May, Ryan and Murphy JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 2 February 2016 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 20 October 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FamCA 876 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr G Page QC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Damien Greer Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Dr M Sayers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Jones McCarthy Lawyers |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in such amount as may be agreed in writing between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nevill & Nevill has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
Appeal Number: NA 82 of 2015
File Number: BRC 2103 of 2015
| Ms Nevill |
Appellant
And
| Mr Nevill |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 20 October 2015, Kent J ordered that proceedings for settlement of property commenced initially by the wife in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia be “permanently stayed”. That decision was made by reason of a finding that the High Court of New Zealand was “the more appropriate court” within the meaning…
Continue reading Nevill and Nevill
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nevill and Nevill [2016] FamCAFC 41
- Case
- [2016] FamCAFC 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide if it should recognise the contributions made by the respondent to the appellant's legal career as a form of indirect financial contribution that should be factored into the asset division. The court considered the nature of these contributions and whether they should be viewed as akin to direct financial support that would influence the equitable distribution of the deceased's estate. The court also examined the relevant legislation and case law to determine how such contributions should be treated in the context of a will dispute.
In its judgment, the court held that the contributions made by the respondent did not equate to direct financial support and therefore should not be considered in the same way as other forms of financial assistance in determining the equitable division of assets. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between direct and indirect contributions and concluded that the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the appropriate legal principles. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in such amount as may be agreed in writing between the parties or, failing agreement, as assessed.
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.