Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830 Jones and Jones (2001) FLC 93-080 Adult Guardian and Mother's Parents and B and Child's Representative (2002) FLC 93-116.
APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT:
Sawer
RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT:
Sawer
FILE NUMBER:
SYF
3549
of
2003
FIRST APPEAL NUMBER:
EA
80
of
2005
SECOND APPEAL NUMBER:
EA
67
of
2006
DATE DELIVERED:
5 March 2007
PLACE DELIVERED:
Canberra
JUDGMENT OF:
Finn, May and Thackray JJ
HEARING DATE:
22 February 2007
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES:
13 September 2004
12 July 2006
REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT/
RESPONDENT:
Mr Serisier
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT/
RESPONDENT:
Mr Greg Alfonzetti
DX 21811 Leichhardt NSW
THE RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT APPEARED ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Orders
(a) That the Appellant Husband provide security for the costs of the
Respondent Wife in relation to appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 in the sum of $5,000.
(b)That the sum of $5,000 be paid by the Appellant Husband to the solicitor for the Respondent Wife within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order and that the sum of $5,000 be retained in the trust account of the solicitor for the Respondent Wife pending further Order of the Full Court.
(c)That in the event that the Appellant Husband fails to comply with Order 1(a) and 1(b) of these orders then the appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 be permanently stayed.
(d) That the costs of the application for security for costs in relation to appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 be reserved as costs in the appeal.
(a) That the Appellant Husband provide security for the costs of the
Respondent Wife in relation to appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 in the sum of $5000.
(b) That the sum of $5,000 be paid by the Appellant Husband to the solicitor for the Respondent Wife within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order and that the sum of $5,000 be retained in the trust account of the solicitor for the Respondent Wife pending further Order of the Full Court.
(c)That in the event that the Appellant Husband fails to comply with Order 2(a) and 2(b) of these orders then appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 be permanently stayed.
(d) That the costs of the application for security for costs in relation to appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 be reserved as costs in the appeal.
IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Sawer & Sawer.
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY
Appeal Number: EA 80 of 2005; EA 67 of 2006 File Number: SYF 3549 of 2003
Kyriaci Koula Sawer
Applicant/ Respondent
And
Renos Sawer
Respondent/ Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These reasons for judgment concern applications by the wife for orders that the husband lodge…
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 Sawer & Sawer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sawer & Sawer [2007] FamCA 140
Case
[2007] FamCA 140
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, comprising Finn, May, and Thackray JJ, considered an application by the Respondent Wife for security for costs in relation to two appeals filed by the Appellant Husband. The dispute concerned the provision of security for the costs associated with these appeals.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Appellant Husband should be ordered to provide security for the Respondent Wife's costs in both appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 and appeal No. EA 67 of 2006. The court was required to determine the appropriate sum for such security and the consequences of non-compliance.
The court reasoned that it had the power to order security for costs in appeals. It ordered the Appellant Husband to provide security in the sum of $5,000 for each appeal, to be paid to the Respondent Wife's solicitor within twenty-eight days and held in trust pending further order. The court further ordered that failure to comply with these orders would result in a permanent stay of the respective appeals. The costs of the applications for security for costs were reserved as costs in the appeals themselves.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
(a) That the Appellant Husband provide security for the costs of the
Respondent Wife in relation to appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 in the sum of $5,000.
(b) That the sum of $5,000 be paid by the Appellant Husband to the solicitor for the Respondent Wife within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order and that the sum of $5,000 be retained in the trust account of the solicitor for the Respondent Wife pending further Order of the Full Court.
(c) That in the event that the Appellant Husband fails to comply with Order 1(a) and 1(b) of these orders then the appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 be permanently stayed.
(d) That the costs of the application for security for costs in relation to appeal No. EA 80 of 2005 be reserved as costs in the appeal.
2.
(a) That the Appellant Husband provide security for the costs of the
Respondent Wife in relation to appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 in the sum of $5000.
(b) That the sum of $5,000 be paid by the Appellant Husband to the solicitor for the Respondent Wife within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order and that the sum of $5,000 be retained in the trust account of the solicitor for the Respondent Wife pending further Order of the Full Court.
(c) That in the event that the Appellant Husband fails to comply with Order 2(a) and 2(b) of these orders then appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 be permanently stayed.
(d) That the costs of the application for security for costs in relation to appeal No. EA 67 of 2006 be reserved as costs in the appeal.