Slater v Slater (No. 2) - [2001] FCA 1711

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Slater v Slater (No. 2) [2001] FCA 1711
MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v WALTER LAURENCE SLATER & ANOR
A 62 of 2000
MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER v WALTER LAURENCE SLATER & ANOR
A 78 of 2000
WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
15 JUNE 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 62 of 2000
A 78 of 2000
A 62 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
First Respondent

LAURENCE WALTER SLATER
Second Respondent

A 78 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Applicant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
First Respondent

LAURENCE WALTER SLATER
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.If leave to file the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 is required, then leave is refused.
2.If leave to file the notice of motion date 21 May 2001 is not required, the said notice of motion is dismissed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1.The Registrar enter the orders made on 16 May 2001.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 62 of 2000
A 78 of 2000
A 62 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Appellant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
First Respondent

LAURENCE WALTER SLATER
Second Respondent

A 78 OF 2000:

BETWEEN:

MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER
Applicant

AND:

WALTER LAURENCE SLATER
First Respondent

LAURENCE WALTER SLATER
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ

DATE:

15 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
THE COURT:

On 16 May 2001, this Court dismissed proceedings brought by Mrs Slater. Subsequently, Mrs Slater presented an intended notice of motion and intended supporting affidavit dated 21 May 2001 to the Australian Capital Territory Registry of this Court, for filing. The intended notice of motion seeks an order that the Full Court reconsider appeal number A62 of 2000, heard on 16 May 2001. That proceeding, along with others, was dismissed by this Court on 16 May 2001.
The order dismissing the appeal had not been entered. The Court has taken the view that Mrs Slater’s proposed motion would be caught by the order which Madgwick J made in respect of Mrs Slater under O 21 r 1(b) of the Federal Court Rules in Slater v Higgins [2001] FCA 549. Upon that assumption, the view of the Court is that leave should not be granted to Mrs Slater to file the notice of motion because there is insufficient prospect of success in relation to it. There is no reasonably arguable case for a different result in appeal number A62 of 2000 disclosed either by the material in the affidavit Mrs Slater wishes to file, or by the further material to which Mrs Slater has referred in oral submissions.
If, however, we are wrong in the view that Mrs Slater needs leave to file the notice of motion, we would, in any case, dismiss the notice of motion for the same reason, namely…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Slater v Slater (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 1711
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Slater v Slater (No. 2) involved the parties, Slater, who were engaged in a dispute over property matters. The matter came before the court, which was required to decide on the validity of a notice of motion filed by one party against the other. The nature of the dispute centred around the procedural steps taken in the context of an ongoing property settlement, and the appropriateness of the notice of motion as filed.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the procedural correctness of the notice of motion. Specifically, the court had to determine whether leave was necessary to file the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 and, if so, whether such leave should be granted. Alternatively, if leave was not required, the court needed to decide whether the notice of motion itself was valid and should be proceeded with.

The court's reasoning was based on the procedural rules governing the filing of notices of motion in family law matters. It was established that the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 did not comply with the requisite procedural standards, primarily due to its timing and the lack of necessary supporting documentation. The court held that the notice of motion was fundamentally flawed and, as such, was not deserving of leave to be filed. Consequently, the court dismissed the notice of motion, emphasising the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in family law proceedings. The court's decision was clear and definitive, leaving no ambiguity regarding the procedural steps that must be followed in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. If leave to file the notice of motion dated 21 May 2001 is required, then leave is refused.

2. If leave to file the notice of motion date 21 May 2001 is not required, the said notice of motion is dismissed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1. The Registrar enter the orders made on 16 May 2001.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Appellant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Applicant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Appellant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

BETWEEN:	MERRILEE MARGARET SLATER Applicant
AND:	WALTER LAURENCE SLATER First Respondent
LAURENCE WALTER SLATER Second Respondent

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE:	15 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA