Walls & Keeble - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1804

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Walls & Keeble [2022] FedCFamC2F 1804

File number(s): MLC 1269 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BETTS

Date of judgment: 9 December 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property – final hearing, part heard –where the husband has made an oral application to re-open the evidence so that a further valuation report can be obtained – where a potential rezoning of property may impact the value of the property – wife opposes any reopening of the evidence – where the husband has no admissible valuation evidence of his own, it would be manifestly unjust to reopen evidence – husband’s application dismissed – just and equitable outcome.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

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

Cases cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Preston & Preston [2022] FedCFamC1A 157

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 93

Date of last submission/s: 30 November 2022

Date of hearing: 29-30 November 2022

Place: Newcastle

Counsel for the First Applicant: Mr Bithrey

Solicitor for the First Applicant: Kekeff & Associates

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Graham

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Lindeman Lawyers
ORDERS

MLC 1269 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS WALLS

Applicant

AND:
MR KEEBLE

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BETTS

DATE OF ORDER:

9 DECEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Husband’s Application to re-open the evidence in respect to the value of the property at Town B, is dismissed.
2.The matter remains listed for submissions on 25 January 2023 at 10.00am.
3.The wife’s Costs of and incidental to today are reserved.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Walls & Keeble has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BETTS

These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript in order to make them easier to read.
INTRODUCTION
These are de facto property settlement proceedings conducted pursuant to the provisions of Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). They arise out of the breakdown of the de facto relationship between the applicant wife, Ms Walls, and the respondent husband, Mr Keeble. While the parties were…

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 Walls & Keeble

Details

AGLC: Walls & Keeble [2022] FedCFamC2F 1804
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1804
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the husband made an oral application to reopen the evidence to obtain a further valuation report for the property at Town B, due to a potential rezoning that might impact its value. The wife opposed any reopening of the evidence. The court considered the matter and concluded that it would be manifestly unjust to reopen the evidence given that the husband had no admissible valuation evidence of his own and had not properly engaged with his responsibilities as a litigant in this case. The court dismissed the husband's application to reopen the evidence and the matter remained listed for submissions on 25 January 2023. The court also reserved the wife's costs of and incidental to the delivery of the judgment of the application to reopen the evidence. The court further indicated that the husband could argue the debate in relation to whether or not the court could take into account potential increases in the value of the property by reason of rezoning issues on the day of the final submissions.

Orders