Summerfield & Summerfield

Case [2008] FamCAFC 63

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUMMERFIELD & SUMMERFIELD [2008] FamCAFC 63

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL FROM FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – FINDINGS OF FACT – Not established that trial Judge was in error in the inclusion or quantification of a credit loan account or monies expended from Hong Kong bank accounts in the pool of assets. Assertion that trial Judge erred in determination of wife’s knowledge of and benefits derived from Hong Kong bank accounts or in relation to the purchase price of personal property not established.

FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY – Not established that appellate intervention in trial Judge’s conclusions relating to credibility warranted. State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others [1999] 160 ALR 588, Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472, Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 and SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37 cited.

FAMILY LAW - DISCRETION – Assertion that trial Judge’s exercise of discretion miscarried in relation to a taxation liability and any interest or penalties relating to it or in general not established. Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 and De Winter v De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605 cited.

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – COSTS – FINDINGS OF FACT – Assertion that trial Judge failed to find the husband had not made a full and frank disclosure of his financial position not established. Not established that trial Judge erred in findings relating to offers of settlement.

FAMILY LAW - DISCRETION – Not established that trial Judge was in error in the exercise of discretion in given nor in the weight given to the disparity of financial positions of the parties, to offers of settlement or to the liability owed to the Australian Taxation Office. Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 cited.

FAMILY LAW - APPLICATION OF LAW – Not established that trial Judge erred in choice of method of assessing costs nor in the amount determined by him.

FAMILY LAW – JUDGMENTS - ADEQUACY OF REASONS – Complaint that trial Judge failed to give adequate reasons relating to the assessment of costs not established.
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Murry (1998) 193 CLR 605
Mordecai v Mordecai (1988) 12 NSWLR 58
Bruning v MMAL Rentals Pty Ltd (2004) 136 IR 14
McDonald v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (1915) 20 CLR 231
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others (1999) 160 ALR 588
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
APPELLANT: Mrs Summerfield
RESPONDENT: Mr Summerfield
FILE NUMBER: SYF 3067 of 2003
FIRST APPEAL NUMBER: EA 135 of 2006
SECOND APPEAL NUMBER: EA 105

Continue reading Summerfield & Summerfield

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Summerfield & Summerfield [2008] FamCAFC 63
Case
[2008] FamCAFC 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Summerfield & Summerfield, the appeal arose from a decision made by the Family Court of Australia concerning a property settlement between the parties. The husband contested various findings made by the trial judge, including the inclusion and quantification of certain assets, the wife's knowledge of and benefits from specific accounts, and the exercise of discretion in relation to taxation liabilities, interest, penalties, and overall financial disparity. The husband also argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address the husband's disclosure of financial information and offers of settlement.

The legal issues before the court involved the correctness of the trial judge's findings of fact and exercise of discretion, particularly in relation to the valuation and inclusion of certain assets, the credibility of the parties' evidence, and the application of the law in assessing costs. The court considered the husband's assertions that the trial judge erred in his conclusions and exercised his discretion improperly.

The court found that the husband had not established that the trial judge was in error regarding the inclusion or quantification of certain assets, the wife's knowledge or benefits from specific accounts, or the trial judge's determination of the purchase price of personal property. The court also held that the trial judge's conclusions about the credibility of the parties' evidence were not open to appellate intervention. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge's exercise of discretion in relation to taxation liabilities, interest, penalties, and the overall financial disparity was not erroneous. The court found no merit in the husband's claims that the trial judge failed to adequately address the husband's disclosure of financial information or offers of settlement, nor that the trial judge erred in his choice of method for assessing costs or in the amount determined.

The appeal was dismissed, and the wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed on a party and party basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appeal be dismissed.

2.

That the wife pay the husband's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed on a party and party basis.

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.