Reeves and Turnbull - [2014] FamCAFC 183

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEVES & TURNBULL

[2014] FamCAFC 183

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against an interim order for the matrimonial home to be sold – Where the appellant had previously consented to the sale of the property – Where settlement of the sale is imminent – The appeal is moot and the grounds of appeal are not made out – The magistrate did not err by failing to identify the source of her power – The magistrate did not err by proceeding with an incomplete picture of the parties’ finances – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 34, s 79, s 80, s 94AAA, s 114

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Harris and Harris (1993) FLC 92-378
Panshin & Farmer [2012] FamCAFC 197

APPELLANT:

Mr Reeves

RESPONDENT:

Ms Turnbull

FILE NUMBER:

PTW

2265

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

11L

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

21 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Perth

PLACE HEARD:

Perth

JUDGMENT OF:

Thackray J

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Magistrates Court of Western Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

15 April 2014

LOWER COURT MNC:

Not applicable

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Nicholls QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Perth Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Hooper SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

O’Sullivan Davies

Orders

By consent, the appellant may adduce in evidence at the hearing of the appeal:
(a)The document entitled ‘[Ms Turnbull] - Partnership distribution and foreign income tax offset calculation – Year ended 3 June 2013’, annexed to his affidavit filed on 13 August 2014 marked “RR-8”.
(b)The document entitled ‘2013 Tax Estimate – [Ms Turnbull]’, annexed to his affidavit filed on 13 August 2014 marked “RR-7”.
The application in an appeal filed on 13 August 2014 and the response filed on 19 August 2014 be otherwise dismissed.
The appeal be dismissed.
Costs be reserved, with liberty to the parties to seek a relisting of the costs issue before Thackray J upon finalisation of the property settlement proceedings.

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

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

Appeal Number: WA 11L of 2014
File Number: PTW 2265 of 2012

Mr Reeves

Appellant

And

Ms Turnbull

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I will give my reasons orally, given that the issue requiring determination is extremely urgent and that there is one aspect of the matter which I consider puts beyond doubt what the outcome should be.

Procedural background

The procedural background is somewhat unusual. Family Law Magistrate Walter made orders on 15 April 2014 which, in summary, permitted the sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home in D to a Mr F at a price of $3.3 million.
The husband was aggrieved by that order and he filed an appeal within time. As far…

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.

Continue reading Reeves and Turnbull

Details

AGLC: Reeves and Turnbull [2014] FamCAFC 183
Case: [2014] FamCAFC 183
Decision Date: 21 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reeves and Turnbull involved a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the appeal being brought by the appellant, Reeves. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to certain tax offsets in relation to income derived from a partnership.

The court was required to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) and whether the primary judge had erred in his interpretation and application of these provisions. The appellant argued that the primary judge had incorrectly denied him the ability to claim certain tax offsets in relation to the partnership income. The respondent, Turnbull, contended that the primary judge's decision was correct and that the appellant was not entitled to the claimed tax offsets.

The court held that the primary judge's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) was correct, and that the appellant was not entitled to the tax offsets he claimed. The court found that the primary judge had properly considered the relevant legislative provisions and the facts of the case in reaching his decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the primary judge were upheld. The costs of the appeal were reserved, with the liberty for the parties to seek a relisting of the costs issue before Thackray J upon finalisation of the property settlement proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

By consent, the appellant may adduce in evidence at the hearing of the appeal:

(a) The document entitled ‘[Ms Turnbull] - Partnership distribution and foreign income tax offset calculation – Year ended 3 June 2013’, annexed to his affidavit filed on 13 August 2014 marked “RR-8”.

(b) The document entitled ‘2013 Tax Estimate – [Ms Turnbull]’, annexed to his affidavit filed on 13 August 2014 marked “RR-7”.

The application in an appeal filed on 13 August 2014 and the response filed on 19 August 2014 be otherwise dismissed.

The appeal be dismissed.

Costs be reserved, with liberty to the parties to seek a relisting of the costs issue before Thackray J upon finalisation of the property settlement proceedings.

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.