WALDON & KIPLEY

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALDON & KIPLEY [2017] FamCAFC 114

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Appellant challenging a costs order and an order dismissing his application for the primary judge to “review” his own order – Alleged lack of procedural fairness – No error established – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appellant wholly unsuccessful – Appellant to pay costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A)

APPELLANT: Mr Waldon

RESPONDENT: Ms Kipley

FILE NUMBER: HBC 246 of 2012

APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 57 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 19 May 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Thackray, Strickland & Ryan JJ

HEARING DATE: 19 May 2017

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 14 August 2014

LOWER COURT MNC: [2014] FamCA 728

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Fitzgerald

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: FitzGerald and Browne Lawyers

Orders

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $2,000 within 28 days of the date of this order.

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 Waldon & Kipley 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 57 of 2014
File Number: HBC 246 of 2012

Mr Waldon

Appellant

And

Ms Kipley

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Thackray J

1. Before the Full Court for determination today is the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 September 2014 by the appellant, Mr Waldon, (“the husband”). 

2. The respondent, Ms Kipley, (“the wife”), opposes the appeal. 

The Appeal Proceedings

1. The appeal has had a chequered history.  The husband has been self‑represented throughout and has had to overcome a number of procedural hurdles that resulted in the appeal being deemed abandoned.  Recognising, however, his status as a self-represented litigant, and in view of the position adopted by the wife, the appeal was reinstated so as to ensure the husband was given every opportunity to advance what is clearly a very deep grievance that he feels in relation to the underlying issue; the resolution of property settlement matters between him and his wife after a long marriage.

2. At the outset of the hearing, there were eight grounds of appeal.  However, over objection, we struck out Grounds 4, 5, 6 and 8 on the basis that they did not disclose any appealable error.  The remaining grounds, had the husband been legally represented, would also have…