Legal Research
Cases
Trendor & Trendor (No 2)

Trendor & Trendor (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 74 1 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 74

Appeal from: Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 842

Appeal number: NAA 2 of 2025

File number: BRC 5389 of 2016

Judgment of: JARRETT, KARI AND STRUM JJ

Date of judgment: 1 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant’s obligation to file a transcript was discharged – Where the appellant submits that the primary judge ignored key financial matters – Where the appellant submits that medical evidence was improperly excluded affecting the primary judge’s adjustments under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal failed to illuminate any appealable error – Where the appellant misapprehends the Court’s jurisdiction and powers – Appeal dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.23

Cases cited:
Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25

Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30

Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55

Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88

Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944

Trendor & Trendor [2025] FedCFamC1A 57

Number of paragraphs: 55

Date of hearing: 1 May 2025

Place: Brisbane

Solicitors for the Appellant: Litigant in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Litigant in person
ORDERS

NAA 2 of 2025
BRC 5389 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR TRENDOR

Appellant

AND:
MS TRENDOR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The time and date provided for in order 13 of the procedural orders made by Judicial Registrar Kane on 5 February 2025 be extended to 4.45 pm on 22 April 2025.
2.The Application in an Appeal filed by the Appellant on 20 March 2025 is dismissed.
3.Notice of Appeal NAA2 of 2025 filed on 2 January 2025 is dismissed.

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,…

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 Trendor & Trendor (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 74
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1A 74
Decision Date: 1 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Trendor & Trendor (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning property settlement in a family law matter. The appellant, Mr Trendor, sought to appeal the primary judge's decision, asserting various grounds including that the primary judge allowed an admitted criminal to benefit from the proceeds of her crime, and that the primary judge improperly excluded medical evidence. The respondent, Ms Trendor, opposed the appeal.

The court had to decide whether any of the grounds of appeal constituted appealable error. The appellant's assertion that the primary judge allowed an admitted criminal to benefit was factually incorrect and deemed scandalous. Other grounds of appeal were examined for any appealable error, but none were found. The court noted that the appellant misapprehended the Court’s jurisdiction and powers.

The appeal was dismissed as the grounds presented did not reveal any appellable error. The court agreed with the reasoning that the appeal should be dismissed, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific orders were made regarding costs, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 2 of 2025

BRC 5389 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR TRENDOR

Appellant

AND:

MS TRENDOR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The time and date provided for in order 13 of the procedural orders made by Judicial Registrar Kane on 5 February 2025 be extended to 4.45 pm on 22 April 2025.

2. The Application in an Appeal filed by the Appellant on 20 March 2025 is dismissed.

3. Notice of Appeal NAA2 of 2025 filed on 2 January 2025 is dismissed.

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

Ground 13 asserts appellable error because the primary judge allowed “an admitted criminal” to benefit from the proceeds of her crime. This ground fails at a factual level. The respondent is not an admitted criminal as the appellant asserts. There is nothing to suggest that she has ever been convicted of a crime. This ground of appeal is scandalous and nothing further need be said about it.CONCLUSIONS Those grounds of appeal that are not incompetent do not reveal appellable error. The appeal, in my view, must be dismissed.KARI J I agree with the reasons of his Honour Jarrett J and I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.STRUM J I agree with the orders proposed by Jarrett J and with his Honour’s reasons therefor.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 74

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Trendor & Trendor
[2025] FedCFamC1A 57 Para 8

…his appeal, namely that the appellant will necessarily be limited to arguments that do not rely upon references to the transcript: Trendor & Trendor [2025] FedCFamC1A 57 at [31]. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL…
Trendor & Trendor (No 2)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 842

…AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 74 Appeal from: Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 842 Appeal number: NAA 2 of 2025 File number: BRC 5389 of 2016 Judgment of: JARRETT, KARI AND STRUM JJ Date of judgment: 1 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LA…
Bahonko v Sterjov
[2008] FCAFC 30

…l and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR…
Trendor and Trendor
[2018] FamCA 944 Para 16

…the primary judge records that: “[t]he husband no longer seeks a departure from the administrative child support assessment” ( Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944 at [4]). Thus, it seems that application was abandoned.…
Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen
[2016] NSWCA 88

…CA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944 Trendor & Trendor [2025] FedCFamC1A 57 Number of paragraphs: 55 Date of hearing: 1 May 2025 Place: Brisbane Solicitors for the Appellant: Li…
Bahonko v Sterjov & Ors
[2007] HCATrans 666 Para 25

…obfuscated by their own advocacy”. Nonetheless, the burden cast upon the appeal court in such cases is not overbearing. In Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415 at [3], the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia said: Notwithstanding the obligation of an appeal court, where it is able to do so, to make its own…
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd
[2006] HCA 55

…Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Manag…
Poulet Frais Pty Ltd v The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd
[2005] FCAFC 131 Para 25

…[14]; Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [22]-[30]; Poulet Frais Pty Ltd v The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 211 at [45]). This basic principle imposes an obligation upon an appellant to identify where error is to be found in a judgment under appeal, whether it be an er…
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 1833 Para 25

…d Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [14]; Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [22]-[30]; Poulet Frais Pty Ltd v The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 211 at [45]). This basic principle imposes an obligation upon an appellant…
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian industrial Relations Commission
[2000] HCA 47 Para 25

…hat appeals are made available for the correction of error (see Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [14]; Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [22]-[30]; Poulet Frais Pty Ltd v The Silver Fox Company Pty Ltd (2005) 220 AL…
Neil v Nott
[1994] HCA 23

…Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944 Trendor & Trendor [2025] FedCFamC1A 57 Number of par…
Gronow v Gronow
[1979] HCA 63 Para 5

…ibuted to various matters leading to that judgment. Questions of weight are matters quintessentially for the primary judge: Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513 at 519. The summary of argument illuminates no appellable error referrable to the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal or otherwise. So too in the course…
Steinberg v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
[1975] HCA 63

…te Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016]…
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth
[1953] HCA 25

…Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.23 Cases cited: Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944 Trendo…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 23

…ppellant seeks to disturb a discretionary judgment. The relevant principles which govern such appeals are well known. Error of the type identified in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 must be established. There, the majority of the High Court said at 504–505: …The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discreti…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
79 2 mentions (from Para 14)

NAA 2 of 2025 BRC 5389 of 2016
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR TRENDOR Appellant
AND:	MS TRENDOR Respondent

Appeal from:	Trendor & Trendor (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 842
Appeal number:	NAA 2 of 2025
File number:	BRC 5389 of 2016
Judgment of:	JARRETT, KARI AND STRUM JJ
Date of judgment:	1 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant’s obligation to file a transcript was discharged – Where the appellant submits that the primary judge ignored key financial matters – Where the appellant submits that medical evidence was improperly excluded affecting the primary judge’s adjustments under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal failed to illuminate any appealable error – Where the appellant misapprehends the Court’s jurisdiction and powers – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.23
Cases cited:	Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30 Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55 Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1975] HCA 63 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; [1994] HCA 23 Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 Trendor & Trendor [2018] FamCA 944 Trendor & Trendor [2025] FedCFamC1A 57
Number of paragraphs:	55
Date of hearing:	1 May 2025
Place:	Brisbane
Solicitors for the Appellant:	Litigant in person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Litigant in person

ORDER MADE BY:	JARRETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MAY 2025