Strahan & Strahan

[2019] FamCAFC 31

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN [2019] FamCAFC 31

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – ADJOURNMENT – Where the trial judge dismissed the wife’s application for an adjournment of the trial due to commence that day – Where trial dates in the matter had previously been vacated on nine occasions – Where the wife asserted that refusing the adjournment effectively shut her out of the proceedings – Where the wife was not precluded from appearing at the trial by any order made by the trial judge – Where the wife had been on notice for five months that the husband was seeking orders that the trial proceed on an undefended basis in default of the wife’s preparation for trial – Where the wife was not present and only provided instructions for her legal representatives to argue the adjournment application – Where the litigation’s history, impost upon public resources, impact upon other litigants seeking to avail those resources and the need to bring an end to the parties’ financial relationship were all highly relevant – Where such considerations outweighed any injustice to the wife – Leave to appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the trial judge identified the parties’ existing interests in property totalling approximately $48 million – Where the wife alleged that the husband had sent $142 million offshore – Where the trial judge considered the appropriate just and equitable settlement of property by reference to the pre-marriage period, the cohabitation period, the post-cohabitation period and the future – Where the trial judge ordered that the wife retain property and cash totalling about $11.6 million – Where the wife had received about $12 million in partial property settlements and $1.5 million in spousal maintenance during the protracted course of the litigation – Where the wife contended that the trial judge ought to have made interim orders rather than final orders given her absence – Where it is not open to the wife to assert on appeal a substantive issue that was neither raised nor foreshadowed before the trial judge – Where the wife’s remaining grounds of appeal failed to demonstrate any appealable error – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – STAY – Where the trial judge refused the wife’s application for a stay of the substantive property orders pending determination of her appeal – Where the wife did not press the stay appeal – Leave to appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79, 81
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.07(d), 1.07(e), 1.10, 13.26

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; [1992] FamCA 2
Bulow & Bulow (2019) FLC 93-885; [2019] FamCAFC 3
C & C [1998] FamCA 143
Chang v Su (2002) FLC 93-117; [2002] FamCA 156
Chorn and Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204; [2004] FamCA 633
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33
Grace v Grace (1998) FLC 92-792; [1997]…