Onslow & Onslow

Case [2016] FamCAFC 7

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ONSLOW & ONSLOW [2016] FamCAFC 7
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the trial judge declared that a de facto relationship existed between the parties between 1989 and 2009 – Where the trial judge made orders for property adjustment pursuant to finding that a de facto relationship existed between the parties – Where the appellant contends that the parties’ relationship ended in 2000 – Where the appellant challenges the factual underpinning of the trial judge’s conclusion that the relationship continued until 2009 – Where the appellant challenges the weight given to evidence by the trial judge – Where the appellant contends that the trial judge gave insufficient reasons for his findings – Where the appellant alleges that the respondent obtained social security benefits to which she was not entitled – Appeal dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VIIIAB, ss 4AA, 117(2A)
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
JJR v PH [2005] QSC 253
Sinclair & Whittaker (2013) FLC 93-551
APPELLANT: Mr Onslow
RESPONDENT: Ms Onslow
FILE NUMBER: CRC 56 of 2011
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 147 of 2013
DATE DELIVERED: 4 February 2016
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Ainslie-Wallace, Murphy & Austin JJ
HEARING DATE: 18 August 2015
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 24 September 2013
LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FCCA 1434

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Jackson
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Coastal Law & Conveyancing Pty Limited
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Carty
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Leckie Law

Orders

  1. The appeal against the orders of Judge Jarrett made on 24 September 2013 is dismissed.

  2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be agreed or assessed and to be paid within 28 days of such agreement or assessment.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Onslow & Onslow 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 SYDNEY

Appeal Number:  EA 147 of 2013
File Number:  CRC 56 of 2011

Mr Onslow

Appellant

and

Ms Onslow

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ainslie-Wallace & Austin JJ

  1. Mr Onslow (“the appellant”) appeals against property settlement orders made by Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court on 24 September 2013 in proceedings as between him and Ms Onslow (“the respondent”).  As a condition precedent to the making of the orders for property adjustment,


    his Honour declared that the parties were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction pursuant to Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The making of the declaration is also challenged in the appeal.

  2. The parties commenced their relationship in 1989 and it was agreed that between 1989 and 2000 they had…

Continue reading Onslow & Onslow

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Onslow & Onslow [2016] FamCAFC 7
Case
[2016] FamCAFC 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mrs Onslow, sought to appeal the orders made by Judge Jarrett on 24 September 2013, which were related to a family law matter. The respondent, Mr Onslow, sought to uphold the orders of the Judge. The appeal was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the appeal against the orders of Judge Jarrett was well-founded. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Judge had erred in his findings or in his exercise of discretion when making the orders. The court also needed to consider whether the orders were just and equitable in all the circumstances.

The court found that the appeal was not well-founded and dismissed it. The court held that the Judge had not erred in his findings or in his exercise of discretion. The court was satisfied that the orders were just and equitable in all the circumstances. The court also found that the appellant’s appeal was an abuse of process and ordered that she pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal against the orders of Judge Jarrett made on 24 September 2013 is dismissed.

2.

The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be agreed or assessed and to be paid within 28 days of such agreement or assessment.

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.