P v J

Case [2014] WASCA 95

P -v- J [2014] WASCA 95



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASCA 95
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:128/201210 APRIL 2014
Coram:NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
BEECH J		5/05/14
19Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:P
J

Catchwords:
Family law
De facto relationship
Application for property settlement
Application for leave to proceed out of time pursuant to s 205ZB(2) of Family Court Act 1997 (WA)
Whether primary judge's findings of hardship open on the evidence
Adequacy of findings
Adequacy of reasons
Whether appellable error in relation to discretion
Matters going to weight only

Legislation:
Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 205ZB

Case References:
Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32
Giller v Procopets [2008] 24 VR 1; (2008) VSCA 236
Gronow v Gronow [1979] HCA 63; (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208; (2001) 27 Fam LR 711
Lovell v Lovell [1950] HCA 52; (1950) 81 CLR 513
Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605
McDonald v Stelzer [2000] NSWCA 302; (2000) 27 Fam LR 304
Monteleone v The Owners of the Old Soap Factory [2007] WASCA 79
Neocleous and Neocleous (1993) 16 Fam LR 557
Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513
Selmore v Bull [2005] NSWCA 365; (2005) 34 Fam LR 488
Wentworth v Rogers (No 3) (1986) 6 NSWLR 642
Whitford and Whitford (1979) 4 Fam LR 754

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : P -v- J [2014] WASCA 95 CORAM : NEWNES JA
    MURPHY JA
    BEECH J
HEARD : 10 APRIL 2014 DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 128 of 2012 BETWEEN : P
    Appellant

    AND

    J
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : CROOKS J

Citation : J and P [2012] FCWA 100

File No : PTW 1385 of 2009


Catchwords:

Family law - De facto relationship - Application for property settlement - Application for leave to proceed out of time pursuant to s 205ZB(2) of Family Court Act 1997 (WA) - Whether primary judge's findings of hardship open on the evidence - Adequacy of findings - Adequacy of reasons - Whether appellable error in relation to discretion - Matters going to weight only

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 205ZB

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr H O Moser
    Respondent : Mr J B Hedges

Solicitors:

    Appellant : GG Legal
    Respondent : Bannerman Solicitors



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32
Giller v Procopets [2008] 24 VR 1; (2008) VSCA 236
Gronow v Gronow [1979] HCA 63; (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499

Continue reading P v J

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
P v J [2014] WASCA 95
Case
[2014] WASCA 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of P v J concerned an application for property settlement within a de facto relationship. The parties sought leave to proceed out of time under section 205ZB(2) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). The primary judge had previously dismissed the application, and the applicant sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the primary judge's findings of hardship were not supported by the evidence, and that the reasons provided were inadequate. The central issue before the court was whether the primary judge's findings of hardship were open to challenge and whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion. The appeal also considered whether the matters raised were merely issues of weight and not questions of law.

The court examined the primary judge's findings and concluded that the evidence supported the determination that the applicant would not suffer significant hardship if the application was dismissed. The court found that the primary judge had adequately considered the evidence and provided sufficient reasons for the decision. The court held that the matters raised in the appeal were questions of weight rather than legal errors, and thus the appeal was not successful. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the primary judge's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.