Shelby & Rylan

Case [2022] FedCFamC1A 143

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Shelby & Rylan [2022] FedCFamC1A 143

Appeal from: Shelby & Rylan (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 281
Appeal number(s): NAA 119 of 2022
File number(s): LEC 701 of 2018
Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, TREE & ALTOBELLI JJ
Date of judgment: 19 September 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the primary judge made an order declaring that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties – Where the appellant argues that the primary judge erred in finding that no de facto relationship existed within the meaning of s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Weight challenges – Where the primary judge’s findings of fact were not glaringly improbable and were open on the evidence – No error found – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 33

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 29
Cases cited:

Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 64 Fam LR 604; [2022] HCA 18

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63

Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128

Sinclair & Whittaker (2013) FLC 93–551; [2013] FamCAFC 129

Smith v Smith (1986) 161 CLR 217; [1986] HCA 36
Number of paragraphs: 48
Date of hearing: 30 August 2022
Place: Heard in Brisbane, delivered in Sydney
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Hodgson
Solicitor for the Appellant: Tyndall & Co. Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent, First Intervener and Second Intervener: Mr Alexander with Ms Eviston
Solicitor for the Respondent, First Intervener and Second Intervener: Family Law Solutions

ORDERS

NAA 119 of 2022
LEC 701 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MS SHELBY

Appellant
AND:

MR RYLAN

Respondent

E PTY LTD

First Intervener

C PTY LTD
Second Intervener

order made by:

ALDRIDGE, TREE & ALTOBELLI JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 september 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Amended Notice of Appeal filed 4 August 2022 is dismissed.

2.Within 60 days, the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal agreed in the sum of $30,000.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE, TREE & ALTOBELLI JJ:

introduction

  1. On 29 April 2022, following a 10 day hearing that commenced on 15 February 2021 and concluded on 16 September 2021, a judge of the Federal…

Continue reading Shelby & Rylan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Shelby & Rylan [2022] FedCFamC1A 143
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1A 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shelby & Rylan, the primary issue involved a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation and application of certain legal principles. The matter was brought before the court for determination of these legal questions and resolution of the dispute. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the findings of the primary judge and assessing whether they were legally sound and supported by the evidence.

The key legal issues before the Court of Appeal included the standard of review applicable to the primary judge's factual findings, the weight to be given to individual factors in forming a composite picture, and whether the primary judge's conclusions were plainly wrong. The Court considered whether the primary judge's exercise of judicial discretion was appropriate and whether the composite picture, rather than isolated factors, was the correct approach. Ultimately, the Court found that the primary judge's findings were not plainly wrong, and the appeal did not merit reversal.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal emphasised that it must be well satisfied that the primary judge was plainly wrong for the appeal to succeed. The Court noted that the composite picture of the evidence, rather than isolated factors, was the appropriate approach. Given that no ground of appeal had merit, the appeal was dismissed. In light of the appeal's failure, the Court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed at $30,000, within 60 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

However, before this Court could legitimately reverse the primary judge’s conclusion on that central factual question, this Court would have to be well satisfied that the primary judge was plainly wrong, that is, her Honour’s decision being no proper exercise of her Honour’s judicial discretion (Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 per Stephen J at 519). It is irrelevant that the members of this Court might have come to a contrary conclusion on the facts. Moreover, it is the “composite picture” and not isolation of, and undue weight or emphasis given to, individual factors that is determinative. conclusion No ground of appeal has merit, and hence the appeal will be dismissed. costs on appeal In the event that the appeal is to be dismissed, the respondent seeks an order for his costs of the appeal. The parties ultimately agreed that if the appeal was dismissed the respondent’s costs would be $30,000. The appeal was without merit and has wholly failed, and no other consideration speaks strongly against an order for costs in this case. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $30,000 within 60 days.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.