Legal Research
Cases
RIMAC & RIMAC

RIMAC & RIMAC

Case [2020] FamCA 675 18 August 2020

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RIMAC & RIMAC

[2020] FamCA 675

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the matter was set down for an undefended hearing – Where the Respondent husband emailed the Court, the day before the hearing, seeking that the matter be adjourned on the basis that he was unable to undertake necessary preparations for the hearing and would not be able to appear at the hearing as a result of health issues – Where the adjournment was opposed by the Applicant wife – Where the husband’s brother appeared on the Respondent husband’s behalf with leave of the Court – Whether the Court should grant the adjournment – Whether the Court, if the adjournment is granted, should impose conditions – Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis – Consideration given, if the proceedings are adjourned, to what orders should be made to progress the matter – Adjournment granted – Orders made for indemnity costs in a fixed sum to be paid by the Respondent husband – Orders made for future directions.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Protected Estates Act 1983 (NSW)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 1.04, 12.13, 19.18

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119
Gadde & Gadde [2015] FamCA 617
Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited & Ors, Idoport Pty Ltd v Donald Robert Argus [2007] NSWSC 23

Rasic & Rasic [2019] FamCAFC 11
Ducatti & Tritton and Anor [2018] FamCA 979

Stoian & Flemming (Costs) [2014] FamCA 944
Ugly Tribe Co Pty Ltd v Sikola [2001] VSC 189

APPLICANT:

Ms Rimac

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rimac

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

1540

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

18 August 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

McClelland DCJ

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2020; 13 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr M Taylor of Hughes & Taylor

NO APPEARANCE BY THE RESPONDENT.

WITH LEAVE, THE RESPONDENT’S BROTHER APPEARING ON HIS BEHALF.

Orders made on 12 August 2020:

These proceedings are adjourned for further hearing over three (3) days commencing on 24 November 2020 at 10.00am, with the fourth day, being 27 November 2020, also reserved if required.
The Respondent husband pay the costs of the Applicant wife, of and incidental to costs thrown away as a result of the adjournment Application, in the sum of $4,400, including GST, within 28 days of the date of these Orders.
Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, the Respondent husband file and serve an Affidavit explaining the reasons for his non-attendance at the hearing listed today and tomorrow, attaching a medical report from either or both Dr F or Dr G explaining:
(a) The reason for his attendance at K Hospital on 2 July 2020;
(b)The treatment provided by K Hospital and the treatment that has been provided subsequently;
(c)The prognosis of the Respondent husband and, in particular, whether it is the case, in the opinion of those medical officers, that he was not capable of…

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 RIMAC & RIMAC

Details

AGLC: RIMAC & RIMAC [2020] FamCA 675
Case: [2020] FamCA 675
Decision Date: 18 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of New South Wales, presided over by McClelland DCJ, considered a dispute between RIMAC and RIMAC. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter brought before the court for determination.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of certain legal principles relevant to the case. The court was required to ascertain the rights and obligations of the parties based on the evidence and submissions presented.

McClelland DCJ applied established legal principles to the facts as presented. The reasoning involved a careful consideration of the relevant law and its application to the specific circumstances of the RIMAC & RIMAC matter. The judgment reflects the court's determination of the legal questions at hand.

Orders