REAGAN & REAGAN (RE-OPENING) - [2013] FamCA 167

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REAGAN & REAGAN (RE-OPENING)

[2013] FamCA 167

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application in a Case – leave to re-open – where a judgment debt is entered into against the wife in the District Court of Western Australia – whether the interests of justice require re-opening of the case – where the application is granted

EB v CT (No. 2) [2008] QSC 306
Emaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [2003] QCA 232 at paragraph 19
Finbrough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd (1995) 1 Qd R 12
Reid and Brett (2005) VSC 18
Summitt and Summitt (Re-opening) [2009] FamCA 365

APPLICANT:

Ms Reagan

RESPONDENT:

Mr Reagan

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

728

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

18 March 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

18 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Cameron

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Schultz Toomey O'Brien

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Carstensen

as Town Agent for
North Coast Law

Orders

Leave is granted to the applicant wife to re-open the case and put into evidence further affidavits filed 1 March 2013 and 15 March 2013.
The parties’ costs of and incidental to this application are reserved.
Certify for counsel.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reagan & Reagan has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 728 of 2010

Ms Reagan

Applicant

And

Mr Reagan

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter is a property division proceeding between the parties that went to trial before me over several days on two different occasions during the course of 2012 and in which I am still reserved in respect of the determination of the dispute and the making of my judgment. The wife comes before the Court again today on an Application in a Case in which she, I have determined, effectively asks for leave to re-open her case in respect of one very particular aspect of the matters that were dealt with in the trial.
As I indicated in discussion with counsel today, my understanding of the authorities in respect of an application to re-open is that the guiding principle in deciding whether to grant leave to re-open is whether or not the interests of justice are better served by allowing or rejecting the application for leave to re-open. In that respect, I refer to the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court in Finbrough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd (1995) 1 Qd R 12 at 16-17, that was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland in a case of Emaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [2003] QCA 232 at paragraph 19. I also refer to the decision of his Honour Justice Applegarth in a case of EB v CT (No. 2) [2008] QSC…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read REAGAN & REAGAN (RE-OPENING) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FamCA 167
Decision Date: 18 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Reagan & Reagan (Re-opening)*, the applicant wife sought leave to re-open proceedings to adduce further evidence. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the application concerned the admission of new affidavits filed on 1 March 2013 and 15 March 2013. The decision was made by Forrest J.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicant wife leave to re-open the case to present the aforementioned affidavits. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the re-opening of proceedings and the admission of fresh evidence after the close of evidence or submissions.

Forrest J granted the applicant wife leave to re-open the case and adduce the further affidavits. The Court's reasoning and the specific legal principles applied are not elaborated upon in the provided text, beyond the granting of the application itself.

The Court ordered that leave be granted to the applicant wife to re-open the case and put into evidence the further affidavits filed on 1 March 2013 and 15 March 2013. The costs of and incidental to this application were reserved, and the Court certified for counsel.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted to the applicant wife to re-open the case and put into evidence further affidavits filed 1 March 2013 and 15 March 2013.

The parties’ costs of and incidental to this application are reserved.

Certify for counsel.

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.