Scott & Danton

Case [2014] FamCAFC 203

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCOTT & DANTON [2014] FamCAFC 203

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the appellant husband contended that the Federal Magistrate erred in determining that an order should be made under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and failed to identify his analysis of why an order should be made – Where the Federal Magistrate did demonstrate in his reasons why an order should be made pursuant to s 79 – Where the Federal Magistrate did not err in determining, in all the circumstances, that an order under s 79 should be made – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent wife seeks an order for costs – Where the appellant husband does not oppose such an order being made – Costs ordered as sought by the respondent wife to be assessed on a party/party basis in default of agreement.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545
Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91
Gabel and Yardley (2008) FLC 93-386
Hickey & Hickey and the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143
In the marriage of Prince, General Credits Australia Ltd (intervenor); A-G for the State of Queensland (intervening); A-G for the Commonwealth of Australia (intervening) (1984) FLC 91-501
Metwally v University of Wollongong (No 2) (1985) 60 ALR 68
Prantage & Prantage [2012] FamCAFC 84
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491
APPELLANT: Mr Scott
RESPONDENT: Ms Danton
FILE NUMBER: SYC 3252 of 2010
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 134 of 2012
DATE DELIVERED: 21 October 2014
PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace and Watts JJ
HEARING DATE: 28 April 2014
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 13 September 2012
LOWER COURT MNC: [2012] FMCAfam 919

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Lloyd SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Campbell Paton & Taylor
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lethbridge SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barkus Doolan Family Lawyers

Orders

  1. The appeal be dismissed.

  2. The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party/party basis in a sum to be agreed or in default of agreement as assessed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Scott & Danton has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 134 of 2012
File Number: SYC 3252 of 2010

Mr Scott

Appellant

And

Ms Danton

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By Amended Notice of Appeal filed 14 May 2013 the husband appeals an order for property settlement made by Federal Magistrate Foster (as his Honour then was) on 13 September 2012. The husband’s contentions are that the Federal Magistrate erred in determining that an order should be made under…

Continue reading Scott & Danton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203
Case
[2014] FamCAFC 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott & Danton was an appeal brought by the husband against a decision of a Federal Magistrate regarding a property settlement. The husband argued that the Federal Magistrate had erred in making an order under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) without identifying his analysis for making such an order. The wife sought an order for costs from the husband.

The court considered whether the Federal Magistrate had correctly exercised his discretion in making the order under section 79. The court found that the Federal Magistrate had provided sufficient reasons for making the order and did not err in his decision. The court also considered the husband's argument that the Federal Magistrate failed to identify his analysis, but found that this did not impact the outcome of the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party/party basis in a sum to be agreed or in default of agreement as assessed. This means that the wife is entitled to costs for the appeal, and the parties must either agree on the amount of costs or have the court assess the costs if they cannot agree.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal be dismissed.

2.

The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party/party basis in a sum to be agreed or in default of agreement as assessed.

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.