O v G [No 2]

The case of O v G [No 2] involved the appellant, O, who sought an order for a property settlement following the dissolution of a de facto relationship with the respondent, G. The matter came before the court for an appeal against the primary judge's decision to dismiss the application for leave to proceed out of time under section 205ZB(2) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). The primary judge had also denied the appellant leave to inspect subpoenaed documents and had declined to apply Anshun estoppel. The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to consider the Anshun estoppel argument and did not take into account relevant considerations in the assessment of hardship. The respondent maintained that the primary judge's decision was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge failed to consider the Anshun estoppel argument and whether the primary judge failed to take into account relevant considerations in the assessment of hardship. The court also had to determine whether the trial judge should have allowed the inspection of subpoenaed documents. The court considered the principles of Anshun estoppel and the importance of considering all relevant factors in the assessment of hardship. The court noted that the finding of Anshun estoppel requires an evaluative judgment and that the likelihood of conflicting judgments is an important consideration. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the primary judge should have allowed the inspection of subpoenaed documents, which would have provided additional evidence in support of the appellant's application.

The court found that the primary judge did not fail to consider the Anshun estoppel argument, as it was unlikely that his Honour omitted consideration of the argument. The court also found that the primary judge had taken into account relevant considerations in the assessment of hardship, and that the likelihood of conflicting judgments was not a significant factor in this case. The court held that the primary judge's decision to deny the appellant leave to inspect subpoenaed documents was not an error of law or fact, and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the primary judge's decision in this regard. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, as the primary judge's decision was correct and there were no grounds for the appellant's claims.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed. The court also noted that the primary judge's reasons were clear and comprehensive, and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the primary judge's decision in this case. The court held that the primary judge had properly considered the relevant factors in assessing the appellant's application for leave to proceed out of time and had not failed to consider the Anshun estoppel argument or to take into account relevant considerations in the assessment of hardship. The court also held that the primary judge's decision to deny the appellant leave to inspect subpoenaed documents was not an error of law or fact, and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the primary judge's decision in this regard.