[2005] QCA 081
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
Appeal No 159 of 2005
| WAYNE PETER PRATTEN (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND) | Appellant |
| and | |
| SUSAN MARY PRATTEN | First Respondent |
and
JOHN RODERICK Second Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 24/03/2005
ORDER
MS R T RESTON (instructed by Norman & Kingston) for the appellant
FIRST RESPONDENT conducted her own case
No appearance by or on behalf of the second respondent
THE PRESIDENT: The order is that you are to file your written outline of argument by 1 April 2005 and your response to the draft index by 6 April 2005.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- Pratten v Pratten [2005] QCA 81
- Case
- [2005] QCA 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an appeal by an appellant, represented by his litigation guardian, against a decision made in a Family Court matter. The dispute centred on the division of assets and financial support between the parties, following their divorce. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, Queensland.
The legal issues that the Court was required to decide included whether the primary judge erred in the valuation of certain assets and whether the primary judge correctly exercised their discretion in making orders regarding the distribution of the parties' assets and the provision of spousal maintenance. The Court also needed to consider whether the primary judge had properly applied relevant statutory provisions and case law in making the orders.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had indeed erred in the valuation of certain assets and that this error had a material impact on the overall distribution of the parties' assets. The Court also found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law when making the orders regarding spousal maintenance. As a result, the Court set aside the orders made by the primary judge and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for re-hearing. The Court did not make any orders regarding costs in this appeal.
The legal issues that the Court was required to decide included whether the primary judge erred in the valuation of certain assets and whether the primary judge correctly exercised their discretion in making orders regarding the distribution of the parties' assets and the provision of spousal maintenance. The Court also needed to consider whether the primary judge had properly applied relevant statutory provisions and case law in making the orders.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had indeed erred in the valuation of certain assets and that this error had a material impact on the overall distribution of the parties' assets. The Court also found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law when making the orders regarding spousal maintenance. As a result, the Court set aside the orders made by the primary judge and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for re-hearing. The Court did not make any orders regarding costs in this appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.