Zagar and Bacall - [2020] FamCA 595

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZAGAR & BACALL

[2020] FamCA 595

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – a large number of unparticularised, vague and near meaningless grounds of appeal advanced – no evidence that appellant had approached all relevant lenders for funds to pay out the wife – stay application refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Myer Emporium Ltd (No 1) (1986) 160 CLR 220
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681

APPLICANT:

Mr Zagar

RESPONDENT:

Ms Bacall

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

8282

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

17 July 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

The Honourable Justice Wilson

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr J. Lloyd SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Neil Jamieson & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms D. Coulton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

O’Sullivan Legal

Orders

I refuse the appellant’s applications made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his application in a case sealed 9 July 2020 for a stay of my orders made on 18 June 2020.
The appellant’s application in a case filed 9 July 2020 is dismissed.
The further hearing of this proceeding is adjourned to 23 July 2020 at 9:30am for determination of all questions of costs.

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 Zagar & Bacall 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: SYC 8282 of 2017

Mr Zagar

Applicant

And

Ms Bacall

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore)

Introduction

Following a two-day trial of this proceeding, on 14 May 2020 I handed down reasons for judgment directing the parties to bring in minutes that gave effect to those reasons. After subsequent hearings on the form of orders, final orders were pronounced by me on 18 June 2020.
The parties fought this case on two main levels. The first was the duration of the relationship and the second was the nature and extent of the parties’ financial and non-financial contributions. Both issues were hotly contested. In the upshot I made findings of fact that the duration of cohabitation was, as the wife argued, namely 15 years. So far as contributions were concerned, I adopted an asset-by-asset approach and assessed contributions of all forms at 40% in favour of the wife and…

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 Zagar and Bacall

Details

AGLC: Zagar and Bacall [2020] FamCA 595
Case: [2020] FamCA 595
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Zagar and Bacall*, Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Queensland was required to determine applications made by the appellant. The appellant sought a stay of orders previously made by the Court on 18 June 2020, and further applications filed on 9 July 2020.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the appellant's applications for a stay of the existing orders and to dismiss the subsequent applications. The Court was also required to determine the future course of the proceeding, specifically concerning the resolution of costs.

Justice Wilson refused the appellant's applications for a stay of the orders made on 18 June 2020. The Court also dismissed the appellant's further applications filed on 9 July 2020. Consequently, the proceeding was adjourned for a further hearing on 23 July 2020, at which time all questions of costs would be determined.

Orders

Orders of the court

I refuse the appellant’s applications made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his application in a case sealed 9 July 2020 for a stay of my orders made on 18 June 2020.

The appellant’s application in a case filed 9 July 2020 is dismissed.

The further hearing of this proceeding is adjourned to 23 July 2020 at 9:30am for determination of all questions of costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.