Wernham & Campagnola

In the case of Wernham & Campagnola, the husband sought to appeal an interlocutory order made by the trial judge. The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge’s jurisdiction under section 79A of the Family Law Act, the interpretation of rule 10.13, and the appropriate costs order. The primary dispute centred around the husband's contention that the trial judge lacked the jurisdiction to make the interlocutory order and that the judge's reasons for judgment were inadequate.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the trial judge's jurisdiction under section 79A of the Act was correctly exercised and whether the term "decision on any issue" in rule 10.13 should be read to mean a legal issue. The court found that the trial judge did not err in her exercise of discretion and that the rule could apply to both factual and legal issues. The court also rejected the husband's challenge to the application of rule 10.13.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error of principle or substantial injustice. The court held that the trial judge’s reasons for judgment were adequate and that the jurisdiction under section 79A could be exercised at various stages of the proceedings. In relation to the costs order, the court found that the husband was wholly unsuccessful and that his financial circumstances did not preclude the making of a costs order. Accordingly, the husband was ordered to pay $7,500 to the wife within six months.

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, as assessed and agreed in the sum of $7,500 within six months.