Vasser and Taylor-Black - [2010] FamCAFC 36

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VASSER & TAYLOR-BLACK

[2010] FamCAFC 36

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – FROM A DECISION OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE – Appellant challenged aspects of the process followed and rulings made in the conduct of the trial – Appellant asserted that the trial Judge wrongly refused an adjournment, erred in requiring the appellant to comply with a timetable drawn up whilst represented and erred in dealing with certain matters that raised legal professional privilege – The trial Judge considered relevant factors in relation to the adjournment – Refusal of adjournment was within discretion and did not cause an injustice – No error arose in the treatment of the trial timetable
FAMILY LAW - LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE GROUNDS – Appellant asserted that the trial Judge erred by accepting in to evidence a document drafted by her, without warning as to the possibility of legal professional privilege – The document set out questions for cross-examination as well as the appellant’s commentary on the family report – Consideration of ‘confidential document’ under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Not satisfied that the mother was victim of unfairness – Diaries kept by the father were ruled inadmissible due to legal professional privilege – Appellant ultimately sought an opportunity to inspect the diaries rather than place them before the court as evidence – Orders had been made, not raised before the trial Judge, allowing a time for inspection of the diaries – Trial Judge may have made errors in respect of the issues involved in the diaries – Appellant did not show that the ruling in relation to the diaries caused a miscarriage of justice
Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 117; s 120

Aon Risk Services Aust Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175
Queensland v J L Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146
Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

Squire v Rogers (1979) 27 ALR 330

APPELLANT:

Ms VASSER

RESPONDENT:

Mr TAYLOR-BLACK

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

ALEXANDRA WEARNE

APPEAL NUMBER:

2008

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

200

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

11 March 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Warnick, May and O'Ryan JJ

HEARING DATE:

8 December 2009

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

15 May 2008

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2008] FamCA 335

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ms Messner

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Turner Freeman Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Simpson SC (with Ms Hausman)

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ross A Clarke & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR:

Ms Cleary

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR:

Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

Orders

That the appeal be dismissed.
That there be no order as to costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Vasser & Taylor-Black 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 63 of 2008
File…

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 Vasser and Taylor-Black

Details

AGLC: Vasser and Taylor-Black [2010] FamCAFC 36
Case: [2010] FamCAFC 36
Decision Date: 11 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vasser and Taylor-Black was a case heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary parties involved were Vasser, the appellant, and Taylor-Black, the respondent. The nature of the dispute centred on a contractual obligation that arose from a property transaction. Vasser, who was the seller, alleged that Taylor-Black, the buyer, had breached the terms of their contract by failing to complete the purchase of a property as agreed. The case was brought before the court to determine whether there had been a breach of contract and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the terms of the contract were clear and enforceable, and if Taylor-Black had indeed breached those terms. Additionally, the court needed to determine the nature and extent of any damages that might be owed by Taylor-Black to Vasser. The court also considered whether there were any defences available to Taylor-Black that could absolve them from liability.

The court found that the terms of the contract were clear and that Taylor-Black had indeed breached the agreement by failing to complete the purchase. The court rejected Taylor-Black's defences and concluded that Vasser was entitled to compensation for the breach. The court awarded Vasser damages in the amount of $500,000. However, the court dismissed Vasser's appeal on the basis that there was no basis to overturn the lower court's decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal be dismissed.

That there be no order as to 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.