Zao & Lee

Case [2019] FamCAFC 169


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

  1. Application for leave to appeal the orders made by Rees J on 27 February 2019 be dismissed.

  2. There be no order…

Continue reading Zao & Lee

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zao & Lee [2019] FamCAFC 169
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zao & Lee involved an appeal against a decision by Rees J dismissing the wife's application for summary dismissal. The wife's application was based on the husband's failure to provide adequate disclosure. The wife argued that the primary judge erred by not admitting exhibits to affidavits into evidence, but the contents of the exhibits were already before the court and considered by the primary judge. The Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) were applied to assess the wife's claims.

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.