FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SAINTCLAIRE & SAINTCLAIRE | [2015] FamCAFC 245 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Binding Financial Agreement – Where the trial judge found that the financial agreement was vitiated by undue influence and tainted by unconscionable conduct – Where the trial judge found that the financial agreement was not binding – Where the trial judge set aside the financial agreement – Where the trial judge confused the principles of undue influence – Where a finding of undue influence was not reasonably open to the trial judge – Where the evidence before the trial judge could not sustain a finding that the parties’ relationship gave rise to a presumption of undue influence – Where no “special disadvantage” existed on the part of the wife – Where the trial judge erred in finding that the parties’ financial agreement was attended either by undue influence or unconscionability – Where the trial judge erred in finding that the financial agreement was not “binding” within the meaning of s 90G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Appeal allowed and the trial judge’s orders set aside – Costs certificates granted to both parties. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VIII, ss 4, 44(3), 71(A), 79, 90B, 90C, 90G, 90K, 94AA(1), 117 Family Law Regulations 1984 Reg 15A |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Saintclaire |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Saintclaire |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 7614 | of | 2010 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 101 | of | 2013 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 21 December 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Murphy & Kent JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 27 April 2015 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 25 June 2013 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2013] FamCA 491 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: |
Continue reading Saintclaire & Saintclaire
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Saintclaire & Saintclaire [2015] FamCAFC 245
- Case
- [2015] FamCAFC 245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Family Court had correctly valued the property and whether it had erred in its approach to the distribution of the property. The court had to consider whether the Family Court had properly exercised its discretion in making the order and whether there were any errors of law or fact that had led to an unjust outcome. The court also needed to consider whether the appeal should be allowed and, if so, what orders should be made.
The court found that the Family Court had erred in its valuation of the property and in its approach to the distribution of the property. The court held that the Family Court had failed to properly consider the evidence and had made errors of law in its approach to the distribution of the property. The court found that the appeal should be allowed and set aside the order made by the Family Court. The court also granted costs to both parties in respect of the appeal.
The court made several orders in relation to the appeal. The court granted leave to the appellant husband to rely on his supplementary summary of argument and list of authorities. The court also granted leave to the husband to appeal if necessary. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the Family Court. The court granted a costs certificate to the husband and the wife in respect of their costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appellant husband have leave to rely on his supplementary summary of argument filed on 21 April 2015 and his supplementary list of authorities filed on 23 April 2015.
2.
If necessary, leave is granted to the appellant husband to appeal.
3.
The appeal be allowed.
4.
Paragraph 1 of the order made on 25 June 2013 be set aside.
5.
The appellant husband be granted a costs certificate pursuant to s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in respect of his costs of and incidental to the appeal.
6.
The respondent wife be granted a costs certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in respect of her costs of and incidental to the appeal.
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.