FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sutherland & Oxley [2025] FedCFamC1A 115
Appeal from: Oxley & Sutherland [2025] FedCFamC2F 269 Appeal number: NAA 96 of 2025 File number: NCC 3929 of 2022 Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J Date of judgment: 3 July 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to the parties’ understanding that they would keep their finances separate – Where the appellant’s ground of appeal accepts the primary judge considered the parties’ agreement – Where the primary judge was satisfied it was just and equitable to make an order – Challenges to weight in assessment of contributions – Decisions with comparable facts are not binding on subsequent courts – No error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90SM
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.23
Cases cited: Anson & Meek (2017) FLC 93-816; [2017] FamCAFC 257
Chancellor & McCoy (2016) FLC 93-752; [2016] FamCAFC 256
Cosola & Moretto (2023) FLC 94-143; [2023] FedCFamC1A 61
Costello & Langdon (2024) FLC 94-212; [2024] FedCFamC1A 168
Fielding & Nichol (2014) FLC 93-617; [2014] FCWA 77
George & George (2024) FLC 94-170; [2024] FedCFamC1A 15
Hedlund & Hedlund (2021) FLC 94-06; [2021] FedCFamC1A 84
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605; [1984] HCA 21
Quintana & Konigsmann [2025] FedCFamC1A 30
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Watson & Ling (2013) FLC 93-527; [2013] FamCA 57
Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 2 June 2025 Place: Sydney The Appellant: Litigant in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Weightman Solicitor for the Respondent: Powe & White Family Lawyers ORDERS
NAA 96 of 2025
NCC 3929 of 2022FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBETWEEN: MR SUTHERLAND
Appellant
AND: MS OXLEY
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $20,883 within 28 days.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the…
Continue reading Sutherland & Oxley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sutherland & Oxley [2025] FedCFamC1A 115
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC1A 115
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of the contributions made by each party and in the weight given to the parties' agreement regarding their finances. The appeal hinged on whether the primary judge failed to sufficiently consider the agreement and whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion in making the property order. The court needed to assess if the primary judge's decision was just and equitable and whether the appeal demonstrated any error on the part of the primary judge.
In delivering the reasons for judgment, Justice Aldridge found that the primary judge had indeed considered the agreement between the parties. The court also concluded that the primary judge's satisfaction that it was just and equitable to make the property order was not flawed. The court emphasised that decisions on comparable facts were not binding and that the primary judge's exercise of discretion was within the bounds of what was permissible. The appeal did not demonstrate any error, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that Mr Sutherland pay Ms Oxley's costs in the amount of $20,883 within 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
NAA 96 of 2025
NCC 3929 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:
MR SUTHERLAND
Appellant
AND:
MS OXLEY
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $20,883 within 28 days.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.