Rimac and Rimac

Case [2019] FamCAFC 11


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

  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.

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

  1. 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.

  2. The applicant and Ms Rimac (“the respondent”) have been involved in property proceedings in the Family Court since 2015.

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Rimac and Rimac [2019] FamCAFC 11
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rimac and Rimac, the High Court was tasked with considering an appeal against a decision made by the Family Court of Australia. The appeal sought to overturn a ruling that had been made in a matter involving the distribution of assets following the dissolution of a de facto relationship. The appellant argued that the Family Court had erred in its assessment of the respective contributions of the parties to the relationship and in its determination of the final division of property.

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.