FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RICCI & JONES | [2011] FamCAFC 222 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the appellant appeals against the summary dismissal of proceedings brought by her seeking property division between her and the respondent pursuant to Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the appellant conceded that the Federal Magistrate had identified the correct legal principles in relation to summary dismissal – Where the Federal Magistrate had accepted all of the evidence of the appellant for the purposes of the summary dismissal proceedings – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred by making findings based on insufficient or untested evidence before the court – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred by considering only those circumstances listed in s 4AA(2) of the Act and thereby failing to have regard to all the circumstances of the parties’ relationship as required by s 4AA(1)(c) of the Act – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred by failing to take into account the fact that at a subsequent final hearing the court could, in exercising its discretion under s 4AA(4) of the Act, choose to have regard to one or more additional matters to which her Honour did not have regard, or to attach to one or more matters a different weight than her Honour attached, and could on that basis conclude that a de facto relationship did exist between the parties – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred by failing to independently consider, and reach her own independent conclusion on, the question of whether it is a necessary precondition of a de facto relationship that the parties must live together – No appealable error established. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4AA |
| Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 720 Jonah & White [2011] FamCA 221 Moby v Schulter (2010) FLC 93-447 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Ricci |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Jones |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 5237 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SA | 8 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 24 November 2011 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | May, Ainslie-Wallace & Johnston JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 6 October 2011 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 17 December 2010 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2010] FMCAfam 1425 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr McConchie |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Fong & Co |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms MacMillan SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Schetzer Constantinou |
Orders
That the appeal against the orders made by the Honourable Federal Magistrate Riley on 17 December 2010 be dismissed.
No order as to costs.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ricci & Jones is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
Appeal Number: SA 8 of 2011
File Number: MLC 5237 of 2010
| MS RICCI |
Appellant
And
| MR JONES |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms Ricci (“the appellant”) appeals against an order for summary dismissal of her application brought…
Continue reading Ricci & Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ricci & Jones [2011] FamCAFC 222
- Case
- [2011] FamCAFC 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the extent to which the Federal Magistrate correctly applied the law in making his decisions. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Federal Magistrate's interpretation of the relevant provisions was consistent with the plain meaning of the Act and whether the decisions made were supported by the evidence presented.
The court found that the Federal Magistrate's interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was consistent with the plain meaning of the Act and that his decisions were supported by the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. The court held that the decisions of the Federal Magistrate were legally sound and that there was no basis upon which to interfere with those decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the appeal against the orders made by the Honourable Federal Magistrate Riley on 17 December 2010 be dismissed.
2.
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.