Probert and Probert & Ors

Case [2019] FamCAFC 67


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PROBERT & PROBERT AND ORS [2019] FamCAFC 67

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPEAL – Where the husband failed to file appeal books in compliance with procedural orders and his appeal was deemed abandoned – Where there was an adequate explanation proffered for the failure to comply with orders – Where the appeal is devoid of all merit and it would be futile to allow it to proceed – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – Where two of the three grounds of appeal were misconceived in that the errors alleged were not in fact errors made by the Magistrate – Where matters raised by the cross-appellants in challenging findings made by the Magistrate were not put to the Magistrate and thus it is not open to raise these matters on appeal – Where the Magistrate took into account the matters complained of by the cross-appellants and no error is demonstrated – Where there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Cross-appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CROSS APPEAL – Where it is not demonstrated how the admission of this further evidence would render the orders under appeal “erroneous” or “lead to a different result” – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband did not seek costs in the event that the cross-appeal was dismissed – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 93A(2)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.44
Batey-Elton & Elton [2009] FamCAFC 101
Bemert & Swallow (2010) FLC 93-441; [2010] FamCAFC 100
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 76
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28
Rand & Rand [2009] FamCAFC 88
APPELLANT/ FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENT: Mr Probert

FIRST RESPONDENT/

SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENT:

Ms Probert

SECOND RESPONDENTS/

CROSS-APPELLANTS:

Ms Turner &
Mr Turner
FILE NUMBER: PTW 872 of 2014
APPEAL NUMBER: WEA 17 of 2018
DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide
PLACE HEARD: Perth
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland, Ainslie‑Wallace &
Austin JJ
HEARING DATE: 27 September 2018
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Magistrates Court of Western Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 29 March 2018
LOWER COURT MNC: [2018] FCWAM 54

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT/FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT: In person
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT/SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT: Ms King
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Genuine Legal
THE SECOND RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANTS: In person

Orders

Order made on 27 September 2018

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant/first cross respondent on 4 September 2018 be dismissed.

…

Orders made on 24 April 2019

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed by the cross-appellants on 21 May 2018 be dismissed.

  2. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

  3. There be no order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to…

Continue reading Probert and Probert & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Probert and Probert & Ors [2019] FamCAFC 67
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Probert and Probert & Ors involved a family law appeal and cross-appeal. The husband had failed to file the appeal books in compliance with procedural orders, resulting in the abandonment of his appeal. He made an application to reinstate the appeal, providing an explanation for his non-compliance. The court considered whether to reinstate the appeal despite its lack of merit. The cross-appellants also made an application in the appeal, challenging findings made by the Magistrate and seeking to adduce further evidence. The court was required to decide whether to allow the reinstatement of the appeal, dismiss the cross-appeal, and consider costs.

The court dismissed the application to reinstate the appeal because it found that the appeal was devoid of merit and it would be futile to allow it to proceed. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court dismissed it because two of the three grounds of appeal were misconceived. The court found that the cross-appellants had not put the matters raised on appeal to the Magistrate and that the Magistrate had already taken into account the matters complained of. No error was demonstrated in the Magistrate's findings. The application to adduce further evidence in the cross-appeal was also dismissed because it was not shown how the admission of this evidence would render the orders under appeal "erroneous" or "lead to a different result."

The court made several orders. Firstly, the application in an appeal filed by the husband was dismissed. Secondly, the application in an appeal filed by the cross-appellants was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed. Finally, there was no order as to costs because the husband did not seek costs in the event that the cross-appeal was dismissed. The form of the order was subject to entry in the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order made on 27 September 2018

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant/first cross respondent on 4 September 2018 be dismissed.

…

Orders made on 24 April 2019

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed by the cross-appellants on 21 May 2018 be dismissed.

2.

The cross-appeal be dismissed.

3.

There be no order as to costs.

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

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.