FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ZAO & LEE | [2019] FamCAFC 169 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Where the primary judge dismissed the appellant wife’s application for summary dismissal – Where the appellant wife sought summary dismissal on the basis that the respondent husband failed to provide adequate disclosure – Where the appellant wife submits that the primary judge erred by failing to admit exhibits to affidavits into evidence – Where the contents of the exhibits to the affidavits were before the Court and were taken into account by the primary judge – Application of r 11.02 and r 13.14 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where no substantial injustice flows from any error of the primary judge – Where leave to appeal was required but was not sought in the Notice of Appeal – Where leave was granted to amend the Notice of Appeal to include an application for leave to appeal – Where the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent husband did not comply with the Registrar’s direction for a costs schedule to be filed and served no later than seven days prior to the first day of the sittings in which the appeal is listed – Where the respondent husband did not comply with the Registrar’s direction for a schedule of costs to be sought at the scale prescribed by the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where there was no explanation for the failure to comply – Where the Court will not extend time for the costs schedule to be filed in accordance with the Registrar’s directions – No order as to costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 94AA Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 10.12, 11.02, 13.14, 15.08, 22.53 Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A |
| Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39 Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; [1992] FamCA 2 Ebner & Pappas (2015) FLC 93-643 Lindon v The Commonwealth (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251; [1996] HCA 14 Re Luck (2003) 203 ALR 1; [2003] HCA 70 Re the Will of F B Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318; 63 WN (NSW) 176 Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; [1992] FamCA 69 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Zao |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Lee |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 8556 | of | 2015 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 30 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 4 October 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Aldridge & Watts JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 September 2019 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 27 February 2019 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2019] FamCA 99 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Legal & Company Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms Cohen |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ren Zhou Lawyers |
Orders
Application for leave to appeal the orders made by Rees J on 27 February 2019 be dismissed.
There be no order…
Continue reading Zao & Lee
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zao & Lee [2019] FamCAFC 169
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the primary judge did not commit a substantial error in the admission of evidence. The wife's application for leave to appeal was dismissed because leave was not sought in the Notice of Appeal, though the court granted leave to amend the notice to include the application for leave to appeal. Despite the amendment, the appeal was dismissed. Regarding the costs, the husband did not comply with the Registrar’s directions for filing a costs schedule, and there was no explanation for his failure. The court ruled that no extension of time would be granted and made no order as to costs.
The court's final orders were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal the orders made by Rees J and to make no order as to costs. These orders are subject to formal entry in the Court's records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application for leave to appeal the orders made by Rees J on 27 February 2019 be dismissed.
2.
There be no order as to 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.