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
The Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant/first cross respondent on 4 September 2018 be dismissed.
…
Orders made on 24 April 2019
The Application in an Appeal filed by the cross-appellants on 21 May 2018 be dismissed.
The cross-appeal be dismissed.
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
- AGLC
- Probert and Probert & Ors [2019] FamCAFC 67
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 67
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.