Pierson & Romilly - [2025] FedCFamC1A 81

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Pierson & Romilly [2025] FedCFamC1A 81

Appeal from: Pierson & Romilly [2025] FedCFamC1F 148

Appeal number: NAA 97 of 2025

File number: SYC 9722 of 2024

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J

Date of judgment: 7 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Summary dismissal – Where the appellant attempts to relitigate matters dealt with in previous proceedings not the subject of appeal – Where the primary judge was entitled to rely on the permanent stay granted in the previous proceedings – Where the appeal has no prospects of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 46

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102QAB, 102QB

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 3

Cases cited: Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; [1996] HCA 51

Number of paragraphs: 19

Date of hearing: 7 May 2025

Place: Sydney

The Appellant: Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Carter

Solicitor for the Respondent: Dezarnaulds Basten
ORDERS

NAA 97 of 2025
SYC 9722 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MS PIERSON

Appellant

AND:
MR ROMILLY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in an Appeal filed 11 March 2025 as amended 23 April 2025 is dismissed.
2.The appeal is dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the sum of $6,442 upon the determination of the property proceedings between the parties.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pierson & Romilly has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:

The court has listed this matter for the appellant to show cause as to why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed under s 46 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) or s 102QAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) as failing to have any reasonable prospects of success. I note in that regard, a court hearing an appeal must act cautiously because at this early stage of the proceedings it…

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 Pierson & Romilly

Details

AGLC: Pierson & Romilly [2025] FedCFamC1A 81
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1A 81
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pierson & Romilly, the appellant, Ms Pierson, sought to appeal a decision made by the Family Court in relation to property proceedings. The court was asked to determine the validity of the appeal and whether it should be summarily dismissed. The court's decision was made by Judge Aldridge on 7 May 2025. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The matter had previously been dealt with in other proceedings, where a permanent stay had been granted. The appellant was attempting to relitigate issues that had already been decided.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should proceed or be dismissed due to its lack of prospects for success. The appellant's attempt to revisit matters that had already been decided in earlier proceedings was deemed to be without merit. The court found that the primary judge was entitled to rely on the permanent stay granted in the previous proceedings, which effectively precluded the appellant from re-litigating the same issues. The court concluded that the appeal had no prospects of success, leading to the decision to summarily dismiss the appeal.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that an appeal should only proceed if it has a reasonable chance of success. In this case, the appellant's attempt to challenge matters that had already been decided in earlier proceedings was not considered to have any reasonable prospect of success. The court found that the primary judge was justified in relying on the permanent stay granted in the previous proceedings, which meant that the same issues could not be re-litigated. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The final orders included dismissing the application for an appeal, dismissing the appeal itself, and directing the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $6,442.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 97 of 2025

SYC 9722 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS PIERSON

Appellant

AND:

MR ROMILLY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed 11 March 2025 as amended 23 April 2025 is dismissed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the sum of $6,442 upon the determination of the property proceedings between the parties.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

NAA 97 of 2025 SYC 9722 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MS PIERSON Appellant
AND:	MR ROMILLY Respondent

Appeal from:	Pierson & Romilly [2025] FedCFamC1F 148
Appeal number:	NAA 97 of 2025
File number:	SYC 9722 of 2024
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	7 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Summary dismissal – Where the appellant attempts to relitigate matters dealt with in previous proceedings not the subject of appeal – Where the primary judge was entitled to rely on the permanent stay granted in the previous proceedings – Where the appeal has no prospects of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 46 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102QAB, 102QB Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 3
Cases cited:	Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; [1996] HCA 51
Number of paragraphs:	19
Date of hearing:	7 May 2025
Place:	Sydney
The Appellant:	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Carter
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Dezarnaulds Basten

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 2025