FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RIMAC & RIMAC | [2019] FamCAFC 11 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time – Application for extension of time to appeal against an order dismissing an interim financial application seeking an account for rent – Where leave to appeal is necessary if an extension is granted – Explanation for the delay – Merits of the proposed appeal – Where the issues raised in the applicant’s financial application are more appropriate to be heard at a final hearing rather than an interim hearing – Application dismissed. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 78, 79 Protected Estates Act 1983 (NSW) |
| Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Forgeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206; Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30 Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34 Rimac & Rimac [2018] FamCA 951 Ryan v Dries [2002] NSWCA 3 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Rimac |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Rimac |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 1540 | of | 2014 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 150 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 30 January 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Aldridge J |
| HEARING DATE: | 17 December 2018 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 8 October 2018 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2018] FamCA 951 |
REPRESENTATION
| APPLICANT: | In person (with the assistance of his carer and an interpreter) |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Taylor |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Hughes & Taylor |
Orders
The Application in an Appeal filed on 19 November 2018 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rimac & Rimac has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Number: EA 150 of 2018
File Number: SYC 1540 of 2014
| Mr Rimac |
Applicant
And
| Ms Rimac |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
By an Application in an Appeal filed on 19 November 2018, Mr Rimac (“the applicant”) seeks an extension of time in which to appeal against orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 8 October 2018.
The applicant and Ms Rimac (“the respondent”) have been involved in property proceedings in the Family Court since 2015.
On 13 July 2018 the applicant filed an Application in a Case seeking the following orders:
1.That within 7 days of the date of these Orders the parties do all things and sign all documents necessary to jointly execute a New Exclusive Management Agency Agreement with [Suburb F] Real Estate in respect of…
Continue reading Rimac and Rimac
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rimac and Rimac [2019] FamCAFC 11
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Family Court had correctly applied the principles set out in the Family Law Act, particularly concerning the assessment of contributions to the relationship and the equitable division of property. The court needed to determine if there were any errors in the application of the law or in the factual findings that would warrant a different outcome in the distribution of assets.
The court found that the Family Court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had made no errors in its assessment of the facts. It held that the Family Court had appropriately considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the statutory framework. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision regarding the division of property was upheld. The High Court confirmed that there were no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's determination.
The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the Family Court's decision. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 19 November 2018 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.