SINTON & SINTON - [2013] FCCA 2270

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINTON & SINTON [2013] FCCA 2270

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – Section 79A application to vary previous property orders – where previous orders made by consent –undefended – insufficient material to establish grounds – application dismissed – slip rule amendment – order – section 106A order.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.79, 79A, 90K(1)(d) & (e), 106A

Fickling & Fickling (1996) FLC 92-664
Gitane & Velacruz [2008] FamCAFC 86
Simpson & Hamlin (1984) FLC 91 576
Taylor v Taylor (1979) FLC 90-674

Applicant: MR SINTON

Respondent: MS SINTON

File Number: SYC 584 of 2010

Judgment of: Judge Kemp

Hearing date: 24 October 2013

Date of Last Submission: 28 October 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 December 2013
REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person, with the assistance of a (country omitted) interpreter

Respondent: No appearance
THE COURT ORDERS:
(1)That pursuant to the slip rule, the word and numeral “order 10” in orders 12 and 13 of the orders of the Family Court of Australia made on 25 June 2010 (“the final property orders”) be deleted and substituted with the word and numeral “order 11”.
(2)That it being satisfied that the wife has failed to comply with order 3.3.1.4 of the final property orders, the Registrar of the Court be and is hereby authorised to sign on behalf of the wife, pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975, any share transfer form prepared by the husband to effect compliance with order 3.3.1.4 of the final property orders.
(3)That order 4 made on 11 February 2013 be discharged.
(4)That the husband be permitted to provide a copy of these orders and reasons to the Australian Taxation Office.
(5)That save for orders 1 to 4 above, the husband’s further amended Initiating Application filed 30 January 2013 be otherwise dismissed.
(6)The matter is otherwise removed from the active pending cases list.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Sinton & Sinton is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYC 584 of 2010

MR SINTON
Applicant
And

MS SINTON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1.These proceedings relate to an application by the husband to set aside/vary orders and notations made by the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2010 (“the final property orders”) pursuant to section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), arising out of a terms of settlement document signed by the parties.
2.At the time of the final property orders, both the husband and the wife were represented by counsel, namely Mr Givney for the wife and Mr Maurice for the husband.
3.The husband now finds himself self-represented in the current application which has been made somewhat difficult given that at various times he has required the assistance of an interpreter in the (country omitted) language ((country omitted) dialect).
4.The wife did not appear at the hearing.
5.The final property orders are as…

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 SINTON & SINTON

Details

AGLC: Sinton and Sinton [2013] FCCA 2270
Case: [2013] FCCA 2270
Decision Date: 24 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Sinton & Sinton* concerned a dispute between the parties, identified as Sinton & Sinton, before Justice Kemp in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter requiring judicial determination.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a relevant legal framework, likely related to property or family law given the parties' names. The court was tasked with resolving the specific legal questions arising from the factual matrix presented by the parties.

Justice Kemp's reasoning focused on applying established legal principles to the facts before the court. The judgment would have involved an analysis of the relevant legislation and any pertinent case law to arrive at a decision that addressed the parties' dispute. The specific legal principles applied would have been those governing the area of law in which the dispute fell.

The provided text does not contain information regarding the final orders or outcome of the proceedings.

Orders