Slater v Slater - [1997] FCA 1592

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

APPEAL – order that Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had no jurisdiction to hear motion for property settlement – transfer of proceedings to Family Court.

CROSS-VESTING – order transferring matrimonial proceedings to Family Court – effect thereof was to divest Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of jurisdiction.

Family Law Act 1976 (Cth)
Cross-Vesting Act 1993 (Cth)

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER and WALTER LAURENCE SLATER

No. AG 16 of 1997

JUDGES:      GALLOP, O’LOUGHLIN and DRUMMOND JJ
PLACE:        CANBERRA
DATED:       27 JUNE 1997

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
  )  AG 16 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER

Appellant

AND: WALTER LAURENCE SLATER

Respondent

JUDGES:      GALLOP, O’LOUGHLIN, DRUMMOND JJ
PLACE:        CANBERRA
DATE:          27 JUNE 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Appeal against order of Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 28 October 1994 be dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal against order of Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 7 February 1997 be refused.

There be no order as to costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
  )  AG 16 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER

Appellant

AND: WALTER LAURENCE SLATER

Respondent

JUDGES:      GALLOP, O’LOUGHLIN, DRUMMOND JJ
PLACE:        CANBERRA
DATE:          27 JUNE 1997

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GALLOP J:

By supplementary notice of appeal dated 23 April 1997, Mrs Slater seeks to appeal and seeks various orders, which are set out at the end of the notice of appeal, and pleads various grounds for those orders to be made. Mrs Slater has appeared before us today to prosecute that appeal as instituted by that supplementary notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal. The respondent, her former husband, is represented by counsel.

It became clear at the commencement of the hearing that what is really before us today is an appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, that that court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion which was then before it, it being a motion instituted by notice of motion of 18 October basically seeking an order that the respondent husband transfer to Mrs Slater his interest in the former matrimonial home called Wandara, and that he pay her the sum of $1,000,000 in compensation and certain other orders.

Furthermore, it was crystallised at the commencement of the hearing before us that the appellant’s proceedings are also proceedings in this court for leave to appeal against an order made by the Chief Justice on 7 February 1997, in which his Honour refused to receive or allow the appellant to file a notice of motion…

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 Slater v Slater

Details

AGLC: Slater v Slater [1997] FCA 1592
Case: [1997] FCA 1592
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Slater v Slater involved a dispute between the parties regarding a property settlement. The proceedings originated in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was challenged on the basis of the court's lack of jurisdiction over the motion for a property settlement. The matter was appealed to a higher court, which had to determine whether the original court had the authority to hear the motion and, if not, whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Family Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had jurisdiction to hear the motion for a property settlement. This required an analysis of the relevant legislation, specifically the Cross-Vesting legislation, which provides for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings between state and federal courts. The court had to consider whether the effect of the cross-vesting order was to divest the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of jurisdiction.

The court found that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion for a property settlement, as the matter fell under the purview of the Cross-Vesting legislation. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court, which had jurisdiction over the matter. The court held that the effect of the cross-vesting order was to divest the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of jurisdiction over the proceedings, making the transfer appropriate. The appeal was thus upheld, and the proceedings were transferred to the Family Court for further consideration.

Orders