Legal Research
Cases
Yunghanns v Yunghanns

Yunghanns v Yunghanns

Link copied

Case Copied 2 June 2000 42 min read

Contents

On this page

[2000] FamCA 681

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT OF THE
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY Appeal Nos.SA48 & 49L of 1998
File No. ML6666 OF 1992

IN THE MATTER OF:  PETER NICHOLAS YUNGHANNS
  RENTIERS MACHINERY PTY LTD
  RENTIERS PTY LTD
  HAVANA PEAK PTY LTD
  INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PTY LTD
  CROXLEA PTY LTD
  KREMFOUR PTY LTD
  PALASSA PTY LTD
  BALLAN PASTORAL CO PTY LTD

Appellants

AND:  DAVID BRIAN YUNGHANNS
  WINGARA WINE GROUP PTY LTD
  LIGON 211 PTY LTD
  CANDOORA NO.19 PTY LTD
  SUNNYCLIFF ORCHARDS PTY LTD
  SUNNYCLIFF INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

First Respondents

AND: MARGARET BRUCE YUNGHANNS

Second Respondent

CORAM: LINDENMAYER HOLDEN & MULLANE JJ
DATES OF HEARING: 1 APRIL, 18 AUGUST, 1999 & WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 2 JUNE, 2000

JUDGMENT OF LINDENMAYER & HOLDEN JJ AS TO COSTS

Appearances: Mr R. Robson of Queens Counsel with Mr Young of Counsel (instructed by Nedovic & Co, Solicitors, Suite 11, 600 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic, 3000) for the Appellants

Mr Bigmore of Counsel (instructed by Jerrard & Stuk, Solicitors, DX30907, Melbourne, Vic) for the First Respondents
Mr Elliott of Counsel (instructed by Stedman Cameron, Solicitors, DX217, Melbourne, Vic) for the Second Respondent
Mr Fildes, Solicitor (of Middletons Moore & Bevins, Solicitors, Level 29, 200 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic, 3000) for Middletons, Moore & Bevins
Mr Toohey, Solicitor (of Tress Cocks Maddox, Solicitors, Level 7, 469 LaTrobe Street, Melbourne, Vic, 3000) for Lander & Rogers
Mr Dixon of Counsel (instructed by Connery & Partners, Solicitors, DX339, Melbourne, Vic) for Mr Udorovic and (instructed by Peter Black & Associates, Solicitors, Level 13, 114 William Street, Melbourne, Vic, 3000) for Mr Brown

INTRODUCTION

On 23 February, 1999, this Court delivered judgment and made orders in an appeal and an application for leave to appeal by Peter Nicholas Yunghanns (“the husband”), and a number of companies over which he exercises control, against orders made by Dessau J in proceedings instituted by David Brian Yunghanns (“the son”) and various companies effectively controlled by him. Margaret Bruce Yunghanns (“the wife”) was also a respondent to that appeal and application for leave to appeal. For convenience hereafter, when referring to the husband and the companies he controls, collectively, we shall call them “the appellants”; when referring to the son and the companies he controls, collectively, we shall call them “the first respondents”; and when referring to the wife we shall call her “the second respondent” or “the wife” as appears appropriate at the time. Although she was not a party to the appeal, Sarah Jane Mahon, who is the daughter of the husband and wife, and the sister of the son, became a respondent to the application for costs, which is the subject matter of this judgment. We shall refer to her hereafter as “the daughter” or “Sarah”, as appears appropriate.

By our orders of 23 February, 1999, the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, the relevant orders of the trial Judge set aside and the injunctions therein contained dissolved.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yunghanns v Yunghanns and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] FamCA 681
Decision Date: 2 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning property settlement orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court. The appellant, Mr Yunghanns, sought to appeal against the orders made by the Federal Magistrate, which had the effect of dividing the parties' property pool. The respondent, Ms Yunghanns, opposed the appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Federal Magistrate erred in: (a) failing to give adequate weight to the appellant's non-financial contributions to the marriage, particularly his role in the development and management of the family business; (b) failing to give adequate weight to the appellant's future earning capacity and the impact of the property division on his ability to generate future income; and (c) making orders that were not just and equitable in all the circumstances.

The Full Court considered the principles governing appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court in property settlement matters, including the limited grounds for intervention by an appellate court. They reviewed the evidence presented to the trial judge regarding the parties' contributions, both financial and non-financial, and the appellant's future economic prospects. The Court emphasised that the Federal Magistrate was entitled to make findings of fact based on the evidence before them and that the appellate court should not interfere unless there was a demonstrable error of law or fact. The Court found that the Federal Magistrate had adequately considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's contributions and future earning capacity, and that the resulting property division was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The appeal was dismissed, and the property settlement orders made by the Federal Magistrate were affirmed.

Orders