FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| REDMOND & MULLINS | [2015] FamCAFC 69 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Leave to appeal – De facto relationship – Where the appellant is an undischarged bankrupt – Where the appellant seeks leave to appeal an order for summary dismissal – Whether the appellant has standing to bring the appeal – Where the trustee is not a party to proceedings – Where the appellant has multiple ongoing proceedings in other jurisdictions – Whether the primary judge correctly determined that the Court had no jurisdiction to make a de facto property order – Whether the primary judge erred in determining that the appellant made no “substantial contributions” as required by s 90SB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the primary judge erred in determining that no substantial injustice would result in the absence of an order – Whether the primary judge incorrectly considered the Trustee in Bankruptcy – Where the appellant alleges a denial of procedural fairness. Whether leave to appeal is necessary – (per May & Ainslie-Wallace JJ) leave may be necessary, in any event no substance in proposed appeal – (per Murphy J) leave is not necessary – Appeal should be dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90SM(4) (a) (b) (c) (15) (16), s 90SB (c)(i), s 94AA Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) reg 6.03, 6.03A |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Redmond |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Mullins |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 705 | of | 2014 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | NA | 49 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 1 May 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | May, Ainslie-Wallace & Murphy JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 16 February 2015 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 11 September 2014 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2014] FCCA 2099 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | In… |
Continue reading Redmond & Mullins
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Redmond & Mullins [2015] FamCAFC 69
- Case
- [2015] FamCAFC 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Redmond & Mullins involved an application for leave to appeal against orders made by Judge Purdon-Sully on 11 September 2014. The nature of the original decision and the reasons for the appeal were not specified in the text. The application was heard by a higher court, whose decision was to determine whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the earlier orders. The court was tasked with assessing the merits of the appeal and deciding if it warranted further judicial review.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including whether there were grounds for considering that the original decision contained a substantial miscarriage of justice, or if the matter raised an important question of law. The court also needed to consider whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and if it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed. The applicant bore the onus of proving that the appeal met the necessary standards for leave to be granted.
In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an appeal. The court considered that the original decision did not contain a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the appeal did not raise significant legal questions. Furthermore, the court held that the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that it was not in the interests of justice to permit the appeal to proceed. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including whether there were grounds for considering that the original decision contained a substantial miscarriage of justice, or if the matter raised an important question of law. The court also needed to consider whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and if it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed. The applicant bore the onus of proving that the appeal met the necessary standards for leave to be granted.
In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an appeal. The court considered that the original decision did not contain a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the appeal did not raise significant legal questions. Furthermore, the court held that the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that it was not in the interests of justice to permit the appeal to proceed. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application for leave to appeal the orders of Judge Purdon-Sully made on 11 September 2014 be dismissed.
2.
There be no order as to costs.
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.