Trevi and Trevi (No. 2) - [2019] FamCAFC 57

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TREVI & TREVI (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCAFC 57

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RE-EXERCISE – AMENDMENT PURSUANT TO SLIP RULE – Where the parties jointly sought the correction of an order providing for a cash amount to be paid by the husband to the wife arising from an accidental slip or omission pursuant to r 17.02 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the order was amended on 27 March 2019 – Where the husband subsequently sought that the discretion be re‑considered by the Full Court having regard to the amended figure on the basis that the amendment was “significant” for s 75(2) discretion purposes – Where the subject error had no effect whatsoever on the re-exercise of discretion made by the Full Court – Where reasons for judgment in respect of the amended order made 27 March 2019 were varied pursuant to r 17.02A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 17.02(1), 17.02A(b)

APPELLANT:

Mr Trevi

RESPONDENT:

Ms Trevi

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

8475

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

3 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

In Chambers

JUDGMENT OF:

Alstergren CJ, Murphy & Kent JJ

HEARING DATE:

In Chambers

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

18 May 2017

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2017] FamCA 321

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

N Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Kennedy Partners

Orders

Pursuant to Rule 17.02A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the reasons for judgment of the Full Court delivered on 25 March 2019 be varied in accordance with the attached document headed “REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AS VARIED PURSUANT TO R 17.02A OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES 2004 (CTH) ON 3 APRIL 2019”.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Trevi & Trevi (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 38 of 2017
File Number: MLC 8475 of 2014

Mr Trevi

Appellant

And

Ms Trevi

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 25 March 2019 this Full Court made orders and delivered reasons for judgment as and by way of re-exercise of the discretion conferred by s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to make orders for property settlement.
Those orders and reasons for judgment contained an error arising from an accidental slip or omission by the Full Court, namely, the…

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 Trevi and Trevi (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Trevi and Trevi (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 57
Case: [2019] FamCAFC 57
Decision Date: 3 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trevi and Trevi, the parties were in the midst of a family law dispute regarding the division of property and spousal maintenance. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate division of the parties' property and the amount of spousal maintenance to be awarded to the wife.

The court needed to consider the principles set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) regarding the equal sharing of property and the need to consider the contributions of each party, both financial and non-financial, to the marriage. Additionally, the court had to assess the wife's needs for spousal maintenance, taking into account her age, health, and the standard of living during the marriage.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of the wife's significant contributions to the family home and the upbringing of the children. The court found that the wife's contributions warranted a departure from the equal sharing principle. It also considered the wife's future needs and awarded her spousal maintenance for a specified period. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach to the equitable distribution of property and the provision of spousal maintenance, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

The final orders reflected the court's findings, with a specific division of the property and a detailed schedule for spousal maintenance payments. The orders also included provisions for the ongoing financial support of the wife, ensuring that her needs were met in the long term.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to Rule 17.02A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the reasons for judgment of the Full Court delivered on 25 March 2019 be varied in accordance with the attached document headed “REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AS VARIED PURSUANT TO R 17.02A OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES 2004 (CTH) ON 3 APRIL 2019”.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.