Stone & Stone

Case [2015] FamCAFC 18

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STONE & STONE [2015] FamCAFC 18

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the trial judge adopted a global approach to the assessment of the parties’ contributions to property – Where the husband received an inheritance shortly before separation – Whether the trial judge gave proper consideration to the introduction of the husband’s inheritance – Where the parties made significant improvements to the inherited property – Where the husband failed to make proper financial disclosure – Whether the non-disclosure was to such an extent that the court was unable to determine the nature and extent of the husband’s assets and financial resources – Whether the trial judge was entitled to consider the relevance of the husband’s non-disclosure in a consideration under s 75(2) factors rather than in considering contributions under 79(4) – Where the trial judge was entitled to take the husband’s failure to disclose into account in determining s 75(2) factors – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant seeks orders to reopen the case in the appeal – Where the appellant seeks to adduce further evidence – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): ss 75(2), 79

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Bellenden (formally Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 343
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Kowaliw and Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
APPELLANT: Mr Stone
RESPONDENT: Ms Stone
FILE NUMBER: SYC 6953 of 2009
APPEAL NUMBERS: EA
EA 		58
82 		of
of 		2013
2013
DATE DELIVERED: 19 February 2015
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Murphy JJ

HEARING DATE: EA 58 OF 2013

  EA 82 OF 2013

18 August 2014

In chambers on submissions
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 18 April 2013
19 June 2013
LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FamCA 270
[2013] FamCA 479

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Alexander Todd
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: McDonell Milne Toltz, Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Richard Schonell SC
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Diana Perla & Associates

Orders

  1. The application in an appeal filed by the husband on 22 October 2014 be dismissed.

  2. The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the application in an appeal as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment.

  3. The appeal against the property orders of Fowler J made on 18 April 2013 be dismissed.

  4. The appeal against the costs orders of Fowler J made on 19 June 2013 be dismissed.

  5. The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeals as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment.

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

Continue reading Stone & Stone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stone & Stone [2015] FamCAFC 18
Case
[2015] FamCAFC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stone & Stone was an appeal brought by a husband against property and costs orders made in relation to the divorce of the parties. The appeal was brought before the Family Court of Australia. The husband sought to appeal against the property and costs orders made by Fowler J on 18 April 2013 and 19 June 2013, respectively. The primary issues for determination were whether the trial judge erred in making the orders in question and whether the husband's appeal should be dismissed.

The court held that the husband's appeal should be dismissed. The trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in making the orders, and there was no error in law or fact that warranted the appeal being upheld. The court further held that the husband's appeal against the costs orders was also without merit. The trial judge had acted within their discretion in making the costs orders, and there was no basis to interfere with those orders on appeal. The court held that the husband should pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the appeals as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment. The application in an appeal filed by the husband on 22 October 2014 was also dismissed, and the husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application in an appeal filed by the husband on 22 October 2014 be dismissed.

2.

The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the application in an appeal as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment.

3.

The appeal against the property orders of Fowler J made on 18 April 2013 be dismissed.

4.

The appeal against the costs orders of Fowler J made on 19 June 2013 be dismissed.

5.

The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeals as agreed between the parties or assessed, such costs to be paid twenty eight days after agreement or assessment.

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.