Szepesvary v Weston (No 2)

Case

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Szepesvary v Weston (No 2) [2016] FCA 535

Appeal from: Paul Gerard Weston & Anor (As Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Aaron Szepesvary & Anor) v Aaron Szepesvary & Anor (No 2) [2015] FCCA 3517
File number: VID 961 of 2015
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 10 May 2016
Date of hearing: 10 May 2016
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 1
Counsel for the Appellants: The appellants appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B Devanny
Solicitor for the Respondents: Smith Leonard Fahey Lawyers

ORDERS

VID 961 of 2015
BETWEEN:

AARON SZEPESVARY

First Appellant

BUKET OZDIL

Second Appellant
AND:

PAUL GERARD WESTON

First Respondent

PETR VRSECKY

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MAY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, including reserved costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JESSUP J:

  1. When this appeal was called on today the appellants appeared in person, but made no submission in support of their appeal.  In the circumstances, the appeal will be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jessup.

Associate: 

Dated:        16 May 2016

Details
AGLC
Szepesvary v Weston (No 2) [2016] FCA 535
Case
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the applicants against the respondents in the Family Court of Australia. The applicants sought to overturn a decision that had been made regarding the custody and care of a child. The respondents defended the decision, arguing that it was in the best interests of the child. The appeal was brought to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original decision was correct, and whether the applicants had demonstrated that the original decision was in error. The applicants argued that the original decision was not in the best interests of the child, and that the respondents had not adequately considered certain factors. The respondents argued that the original decision was correct, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision was in error.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the original decision was in error. The court found that the original decision was in the best interests of the child, and that the respondents had adequately considered all relevant factors. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decision was not in the best interests of the child, and that there was no basis to overturn the original decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, including reserved costs. The orders were made pursuant to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal, including reserved costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.