REDDINGTON & PONTOW

The applicant, Reddington, sought leave to appeal a decision by Judge Vasta dismissing an application for leave to appeal under section 44(6). The primary dispute arose from a family law matter, focusing on property division. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal. The court was required to decide whether the grounds of appeal contained arguable errors of principle by the primary judge and whether the refusal of leave would result in substantial injustice to the wife.

In examining the grounds of appeal, the Full Court noted that the husband contended the property was "so small" that no substantial injustice could occur if leave to appeal was refused. However, the court observed that the value of the parties’ property was neither agreed upon by the parties nor the subject of any findings by the primary judge. Given this uncertainty, the Full Court considered whether the refusal of leave would result in substantial injustice to the wife. The Full Court determined that the grounds of appeal contained arguable errors of principle and that refusing leave would indeed result in substantial injustice to the wife.

Accordingly, the Full Court allowed the applicant leave to appeal the order made by Judge Vasta on 4 August 2017. The matter was referred to the Appeals Registrar for directions regarding the preparation for, and the hearing of, the appeal. The costs of the application for leave to appeal were reserved to the Full Court for determination on the hearing of the appeal. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.