Scott & Danton

[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…