Sheridan & Delany (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 38

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Sheridan & Delany (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 38   

Appeal from: Delany & Sheridan [2024] FCWAM 146
Appeal number: NAA 254 of 2024
File number: PTW 1778 of 2022
Judgment of: SCHONELL J
Date of judgment: 7 March 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant appeals orders made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia in undefended financial proceedings – Where the primary judge found that the s 75(2) factors warranted a further adjustment in favour of the respondent as to 10 percent, divided the party’s property as to 65 percent to the respondent and 35 percent to the appellant, and dismissed the respondent’s application for spousal maintenance – Where the appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia and contends that the value of the home was grossly undervalued –Where the appellant’s submissions as to jurisdiction was arrant nonsense masquerading as a legal submission-Where no error is made out – Appeal dismissed – Consideration of s 117(2A) – The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,000 within 60 days.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 117, 117(2), 117(2A) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Fields & Smith (2015) FLC 93-638; [2015] FamCAFC 57

Fitzgerald (as Child Representative for A (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania)) v Fish (2005) 33 Fam LR 123; [2005] FamCA 158

Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289

Hazeldell Ltd v Commonwealth (1924) 34 CLR 442; HCA 36

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Lamereaux and Noirnot (2008) FLC 93-364; [2008] FamCAFC 22

Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17

Pascoe & Larsen (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 126

Re Magistrate MM Flynn; ex parte McJannett [2013] WASC 372

Tomasetti & Tomasetti (2000) FLC 93-023; [2000] FamCA 314

Warbrick & Warbrick (No 2) (2021) FLC 94-030; [2021] FamCAFC 101
Number of paragraphs: 48
Date of hearing: 26 February 2025
Place: Sydney
The Appellant: Litigant in person
The Respondent: Litigant in person

ORDERS

NAA 254 of 2024
PTW 1778 of 2022

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

MR SHERIDAN

Appellant
AND:

MS DELANY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Notice of Appeal filed 30 September 2024 is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,000 such sum to be paid within 60 days of the making of this order.

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…

Continue reading Sheridan & Delany (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sheridan & Delany (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 38
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1A 38
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Sheridan & Delany (No 2), the husband, Mr Sheridan, appealed against the orders made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia in financial proceedings that were conducted without his participation. The respondent, Ms Delany, initiated the proceedings on 4 March 2022, seeking financial orders following the breakdown of the marriage. Mr Sheridan did not comply with procedural directions, resulting in the matter being heard on an undefended basis. The primary judge, Her Honour, found that the relevant section 75(2) factors warranted an adjustment in favour of the respondent by 10 percent, divided the property between the parties as to 65 percent to the respondent and 35 percent to the appellant, and dismissed the respondent's application for spousal maintenance.

The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia and argued that the value of the family home had been grossly undervalued. He contended that the court should have complied with sections 71, 72, 73, and 74 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The court, however, found that the appellant's submissions regarding jurisdiction were without merit and amounted to nonsense disguised as a legal argument. The court held that no error had been made in the proceedings and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs assessed at $3,000, payable within 60 days of the order.

The court found that the appellant's challenges to the court's jurisdiction were baseless and did not constitute a valid legal argument. The reasoning of the primary judge was thorough and considered the facts and applicable law correctly. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were awarded to the respondent. The orders of the court were that the Notice of Appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $3,000 within 60 days of the making of this order.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 254 of 2024

PTW 1778 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR SHERIDAN

Appellant

AND:

MS DELANY

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Notice of Appeal filed 30 September 2024 is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $3,000 such sum to be paid within 60 days of the making of this order.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

By Notice of Appeal filed 30 September 2024 the appellant husband (“the appellant”) appeals orders made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia in undefended financial proceedings. BACKGROUND The proceeding the subject of the appeal was commenced by the respondent on 4 March 2022. Orders were made on 14 June 2022 for the appellant to file a Response. Rather than complying with the direction, the appellant corresponded with the court challenging the jurisdiction of the court to determine the respondent’s Application. On 6 September 2023, the respondent caused the court to issue a subpoena directed to a bank. The appellant objected to the subpoena, again challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Further directions were made on 12 October 2022. The appellant elected not to comply with those directions. On 8 January 2024, as a consequence of a failure by the appellant to comply with directions, the court determined the matter would proceed on an undefended basis. Further directions were made that in the event the appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, he was to file written submissions setting out the basis for any such challenge by no later than 9 April 2024. The reasons of Her Honour recorded as Delany & Sheridan [2024] FCWAM 146 (“the reasons for judgment”) recount that the appellant did not file submissions in accordance with the direction, instead choosing to again correspond with the court. His correspondence requested that the court “comply with sections 71, 72, 73 and 74 of the Commonwealth Constitution” as recorded at [15] of the primary judgment. The matter proceeded to what was described as an undefended hearing on 16 August 2024. At the hearing, both the appellant and respondent appeared unrepresented. At the commencement of the hearing, Her Honour explained the process that she proposed to adopt, identified the documents the respondent relied upon, and indicated to the appellant that he had an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent. The transcript reveals Her Honour asked some questions of the respondent and then permitted the appellant to cross-examine her. The appellant asked the respondent whether or not she regarded the house as still having the same value as it had two years ago to which she answered “Yes”, (transcript dated 16 August 2024, page 7 lines 25–30). He then asked her whether the house had gone up in value to which she replied “No” and then asked her questions about the number of bedrooms in the house (transcript dated 16 August 2024, page 7 lines 30–40). The appellant then asked the respondent some questions about an injury she had sustained, why she had left her former employment, and whether the parties owed money to the appellant’s parents to which the respondent agreed that monies had been advanced by them approximately 20 years ago. The appellant also asked the respondent questions about monies he had paid on behalf of the children including the purchase of a motor vehicle and the payment of various expenses.

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.