Taffa and Taffa - [2010] FamCAFC 203

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAFFA & TAFFA

[2010] FamCAFC 203

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DIVORCE - Wife’s appeal against trial judge’s decision to dismiss application for a decree of dissolution of marriage – Not established that the trial judge was in error in recognising the divorce previously granted by the Lebanese Canonical Court pursuant to s 104(3)(d) of the Act – Not established that trial judge erred in finding that wife had been applicant in Lebanese proceedings – Not established that recognition of the divorce manifestly contrary to public policy – Not established that wife was not afforded natural justice by Lebanese Canonical Courts granting divorce – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 104

APPELLANT:

MS TAFFA

RESPONDENT:

MR TAFFA

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

5067

2000

APPEAL NUMBER:

2009

DATE DELIVERED:

13 September 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Coleman, May & Murphy JJ

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2010

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

21 January 2009

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2009] FamCA 85

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Sandroussi

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

AYS Legals

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Boyle

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Orders

That the appeal is dismissed.
That there is no order for costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Taffa & Taffa is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 21 of 2009
File Number: SYF 5067 of 2000

MS TAFFA

Appellant

And

MR TAFFA

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Coleman J

By Amended Notice of Appeal filed 24 July 2009, Ms Taffa, the wife, appealed against orders made by Le Poer Trench J in proceedings between herself and Mr Taffa, the husband.
His Honour’s order, dated 21 July 2009, provided that the wife’s application for a decree of dissolution of marriage filed 23 March 2007 be dismissed. From that order the wife has appealed.
Some matters of background to the appeal are instructive, and these find expression in the trial judge’s reasons for judgment. As will be seen, the appeal ultimately turns upon a narrow issue, which does not involve the evidence of the parties as to facts, but rather a consideration of expert opinion evidence, and the trial judge’s findings in relation to that evidence.
The trial judge identified the application before him as being the wife’s application for a decree of dissolution of a marriage solemnised in Kuwait in March 1973. The husband opposed the granting of a decree on the basis that the marriage had already been dissolved by a court in Lebanon on 24 November 1998. The wife’s case in response was that the 24 November 1998 decree ought not be recognised pursuant to the provisions of s 104 of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). There is no suggestion that his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Taffa and Taffa

Details

AGLC: Taffa and Taffa [2010] FamCAFC 203
Case: [2010] FamCAFC 203
Decision Date: 13 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taffa and Taffa was heard by the Court of Appeal in Australia. The dispute involved a property settlement between the parties, following a divorce. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in the valuation of the parties' respective assets and in the division of those assets. The respondent argued that the trial judge had misapplied the principles of the Family Law Act in assessing the value of certain assets and in the overall division of the property.

The court examined whether the trial judge had acted within his discretion in valuing and dividing the assets. It was established that the trial judge had made a number of findings regarding the value of specific assets, which the respondent contested. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately and had not erred in his valuation or division of the assets. The court held that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had reached a conclusion that was neither illogical nor unreasonable. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and no order for costs was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal is dismissed.

That there is no order for costs.

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.