Legal Research
Cases
Piper v Mueller

Piper v Mueller

Case [2015] FamCAFC 241 18 December 2015

Appeal

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PIPER & MUELLER

[2015] FamCAFC 241

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether a financial agreement is binding on the parties – Where parties executed a single financial agreement which purported to be a financial agreement entered pursuant to Part VIIIA and Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where parties in a de facto relationship and engaged to marry – Where marriage did not eventuate – Whether there was strict compliance with s 90UJ – Nature of legal advice – Whether unjust and inequitable for agreement not to be binding on the parties – Whether the two agreements needed to be in separate documents – Where no error is established – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90B(1), s 90DA, s 90G, s 90UB, s 90UC(1A), s 90UF, s 90UJ

Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (No. 15 of 2008) (Cth)

Family Law Amendment Act 2003 (No. 138 of 2003) (Cth)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) s 31

Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Act (No.1) 2009 (No. 122 of 2009) (Cth)

Black and Black (2008) FLC 93-537
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Hoult & Hoult (2013) FLC 93-546
J & J [2006] FamCA 442
Neil v Jacovou (2011) FLC 93-475
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa (2013) 84 NSWLR 231
Russell v Quinton [2000] NSWSC 322
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141
Wallace & Stelzer and Anor (2013) FLC 93-566
Whatley & Whatley [2007] FamCA 1671

APPELLANT:

Mr Piper

RESPONDENT:

Ms Mueller

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

3829

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

18 December 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Ryan, Murphy & Aldridge JJ

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2015

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

3 December 2014

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2014] FCCA 2659

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Black

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

P. M. Lee & Co

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Porter Davies Lawyers

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or if not agreed, as assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Piper & Mueller 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 80 of 2014
File Number: BRC 3829 of 2012

Mr Piper

Appellant

And

Ms Mueller

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ryan & Aldridge JJ

Introduction

On 21 August 2009 Mr Piper (“the appellant”) and Ms Mueller (“the respondent”) entered into an agreement said by the respondent to be a binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement pursuant to s 90UJ of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
At trial, the appellant contended that the document was not a binding financial agreement because it impermissibly purported…

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 Piper v Mueller

Details

AGLC: Piper v Mueller [2015] FamCAFC 241
Case: [2015] FamCAFC 241
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Piper, the appellant, brought a case against Mueller, the respondent, before the Supreme Court of Queensland, challenging a decision of the District Court. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a contract between the two parties, specifically addressing issues related to the terms of delivery and payment. Piper argued that Mueller had breached the contract by failing to deliver goods within the stipulated timeframe and by delaying payment. Mueller contended that the delays were due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control, which should excuse the delay under the contract's terms.

The court was required to determine whether Mueller's actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, what remedies were available to Piper. Key issues included the interpretation of specific contractual clauses related to delivery timelines and the doctrine of frustration in the context of unforeseen events. The court had to weigh the arguments regarding the impact of unforeseen events on contractual obligations and the principle of strict compliance with contractual terms.

In its judgment, the court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, requiring strict adherence to the delivery and payment terms. The court held that the unforeseen events relied upon by Mueller did not absolve them of their contractual obligations. The doctrine of frustration, which could potentially excuse non-performance due to unforeseeable events, was not applicable as the contract included provisions that addressed such contingencies. Consequently, the court ruled that Mueller had indeed breached the contract, and Piper was entitled to the remedies specified within the contract, including damages for the delay in delivery and payment. The appeal was dismissed, and Piper was awarded costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or if not agreed, 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.

Actions

Citations

Piper v Mueller [2015] FamCAFC 241

Most Recent Citation

Beckstead & Beckstead [2021] FedCFamC2F 136

Cases Citing This Decision

Harris & Cameron [2024] FedCFamC2F 1033
Citation 1 (Para 2)

…uently in relation to the agreement (bearing in mind that changes of circumstances cannot be considered).[44] [44] Applied in Piper & Mueller [2015] FamCAFC 241; (2015) FLC ¶93-686 at [59] per Ryan & Aldridge JJ.…
Edser v QSuper Board [2023] FCA 1120
Citation 2 (Para 6)

…ees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559; [2001] HCA 1 at [193] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ) (“obvious and clear language”); Piper & Mueller [2015] FamCAFC 241 at [54] (Ryan and Aldridge JJ) (“The inference is an obvious and clear one”); E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited (2009) 175 FCR 386; [2009] F…
Last v Lewis [2022] NSWSC 791
Citation 3 (Para 52)

…ising care and good judgment in relation to his or her own interests: Russell v Quinton , at [70]. In Piper v Mueller (2015) 54 Fam LR 369, at 381; [2015] FamCAFC 241, at [52], Ryan and Aldridge JJ wrote (albeit in another context): “…in determining what is ‘prudent’, the court looks to the future and the interests o…
Beckstead & Beckstead [2021] FedCFamC2F 136
Citation 4 (Para 3)

…of the terms of the agreement and address the practical implications for entering into the agreement.[6] [6] See the discussion in Piper & Mueller [2015] FamCAFC 241 Errors in the Agreement…
Kaimal & Kaimal [2020] FamCA 971
Citation 5 (Para 8)

…d reasonable, necessarily involves a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of those provisions .[17] I concur with that statement. [17] [2015] FamCAFC 241 at [52].…
Austin v Austin [2019] NSWSC 1397
Citation 6 (Para 52)

…ising care and good judgment in relation to his or her own interests: Russell v Quinton , at [70]. In Piper v Mueller (2015) 54 Fam LR 369, at 381; [2015] FamCAFC 241, at [52], Ryan and Aldridge JJ wrote (albeit in another context): ‘…in determining what is “prudent”, the court looks to the future and the interests o…
Kelly v Kelly [2019] NSWSC 994
Citation 7

…v Weldon [2001] NSWSC 474 Neil v Jacovou [2011] NSWSC 87 Oxley v Oxley [2014] NSWSC 1606 Piper v Mueller (2015) 54 Fam LR 369; [2015] FamCAFC 241 Robinson v Robinson [2019] NSWCA 180 Russell v Quinton [2000] NSWSC 322 Smith v Smith (No 3) (1986) 161 CLR 217; [1986] HCA 36 Texts Cited: Practice Note SC Eq 7 Category:…
Warner and Cummings [2017] FCCA 432
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…The Court said at [41] “Once it has been found that the Agreement…was an Agreement entered into pursuant to section 90UC, 90UJ (1) (b) applied. That subsection requires each party to be provided with advice from a legal practitioner about ….the effect of the Agreement on the rights of that party and about the advant…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Piper and Mueller [2014] FCCA 2659
Citation 1

…[2014] FCCA 2659…
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…In an entirely different context the Court of Appeal of New South Wales said in Provident Capital Ltd v Papa (2013) 84 NSWLR 231, at 253 per Macfarlan JA: 80.In my view, a reasonable solicitor in the position of Mr Caramanlis would have formed the view that Mrs Papa’s home, and the business which constituted her livel…
Neil v Jacovou [2011] NSWSC 87
Citation 3 (Para 10)

…In Neil v Jacovou (2011) FLC 93-475 Slattery J explained these paragraphs saying, at 85, 814: 64.… When considering whether the release was “prudent” within Family Provision Act s 31(5)(b), the Court should consider that a prudent person is someone who acts with care and thought for the future, in particular in exercisi…
Whatley & Whatley [2007] FamCA 1671
Citation 4 (Para 3)

…onour was correctly decided on this point and ought to have been followed. That aspect of the decision was followed by Coleman J in Whatley & Whatley [2007] FamCA 1671.…
J & J [2006] FamCA 442
Citation 5 (Para 3)

…Secondly, we are of the view that the decision of Collier J in J & J [2006] FamCA 442 as quoted by her Honour was correctly decided on this point and ought to have been followed. That aspect of the decision was followed by Coleman J in Whatley & Whatley [2007] FamCA 1671.…
Russell v Quinton [2000] NSWSC 322
Citation 6 (Para 9)

…On such an application for approval, Bergin J in Russell v Quinton [2000] NSWSC 322 said at [70] – [75]: Was it prudent? 70.A prudent person is one who acts with care and thought for the future in particular exercising care and good judgment in relation to one's own interests. 71.The deceased informed the plaintiff…
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ry judge”.[8] [7] De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605, 78, 091 – 78, 092. See also: Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141 at 145. [8] De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605, 78, 091 – 78, 092 . See also: Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141 at 145 (where…

Legislation Cited

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 90B(1)
2 mentions (from Para 3)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) 31
2 mentions (from Para 8)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Family Law Amendment Act 2003 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)