Family Court Of Australia
| TIAN & FONG | [2010] FamCAFC 255 |
| FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in including a property that was in joint names of the Wife and her father as part of the assets of the marriage – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in relation to his treatment of loans from family members of the Husband and Wife – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in the exercise of his discretion pursuant to section 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by failing to adjourn proceedings – Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in his finding that there should be no adjustment after considering s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the Federal Magistrate made a property settlement order that was not just and equitable – Where careful consideration needs to be given when dealing with a witness who does not have English as their native tongue especially in findings of credit – Appeal allowed |
| Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 CDJvVAJ (No. 1) (1998) 197 CLR 172 Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 In the Marriage ofGrace (1997) 22 Fam LR 442 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Prpic and Prpic (1995) FLC 92-574 Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072 |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s 75(2), s 79, s 79(4), s 79(5), s 93A(2), s 94AA(3) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 22.39 |
| APPELLANT WIFE: | MS TIAN |
| RESPONDENT HUSBAND: | MR FONG |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 923 | of | 2008 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SA | 89 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 15 December 2010 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | O’Ryan J |
| HEARING DATE: | 6 July 2010 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 8 October 2009 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2009] FMCAfam 856 |
Representation
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WIFE: | Mr D. Mort |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT WIFE: | Westminster Lawyers |
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND: | Ms M. Vohra |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND: | Robinson Gill Lawyers |
Orders
The appeal be allowed.
The order made on 8 October 2009 pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by Federal Magistrate O’Sullivan be set aside.
The applications for property settlement be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court for redetermination by a Federal Magistrate other than Federal Magistrate O’Sullivan.
Each party be at liberty to make an application by way of written submissions in respect of costs incurred in relation to the appeal by filing such submissions at the Southern Region Appeal Registry of the Family Court of Australia and serving them on the other party within 14 days of the date hereof.
Each party have a further seven days in which to make written submissions in answer thereto by filing such…
Continue reading Tian and Fong
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tian and Fong [2010] FamCAFC 255
- Case
- [2010] FamCAFC 255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the magistrate had erred in several respects. First, the magistrate failed to adequately consider all relevant factors in determining the property settlement, including the contributions made by each party to the marriage and the future financial needs of both parties. Second, the court found that the magistrate did not provide sufficient reasons for the property orders made, which is a requirement under the Family Law Act. These errors led the court to conclude that the magistrate's decision was not fair and just and that the order should be set aside.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order made on 8 October 2009 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court for redetermination by a different magistrate. Additionally, the parties were granted liberty to submit written costs applications and responses within specified timeframes. The court emphasised the importance of thorough consideration and adequate reasoning in future proceedings, ensuring that both parties' interests are fairly represented.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The order made on 8 October 2009 pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by Federal Magistrate O’Sullivan be set aside.
3.
The applications for property settlement be remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court for redetermination by a Federal Magistrate other than Federal Magistrate O’Sullivan.
4.
Each party be at liberty to make an application by way of written submissions in respect of costs incurred in relation to the appeal by filing such submissions at the Southern Region Appeal Registry of the Family Court of Australia and serving them on the other party within 14 days of the date hereof.
5.
Each party have a further seven days in which to make written submissions in answer thereto by filing such submissions at the Southern Region Appeal Registry of the Family Court of Australia and serving them on the other party.
6.
Each party be at liberty to reply to an answer by way of written submissions by filing such reply at the Southern Region Appeal Registry of the Family Court of Australia and serving it on the other party within a further seven days.
7.
Each party endorse on the cover sheet of any submissions filed pursuant to orders (4), (5) and (6), the date upon which a copy of that submission was served on the other parties.
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.