FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ZAU & UONG | [2016] FamCAFC 76 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant complains that the trial judge erred in dismissing her application for an adjournment by failing to give sufficient weight to her submissions – Where the appellant complains that the trial judge erred in not permitting her to have the assistance of the duty solicitor on the day of the hearing, calling the matter on before assistance could be sought – Where the appellant complains that the respondent provided inadequate disclosure – Where the appellant complains that the trial judge gave insufficient weight to her evidence as to the existence of a de facto relationship – Where there is no merit in any of the complaints and no error by the trial judge – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant sought a number of orders most of which pertained to the preparation of the appeal for hearing – Where the majority of the applications have previously been dealt with and orders are no longer necessary or appropriate – Where it is necessary to consider the application made by the appellant to adduce further evidence – Where much of the evidence sought to be adduced was available at trial and in any event is irrelevant to the issues for determination on appeal – Applications dismissed. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondent seeks his costs on an indemnity basis – Where the appellant has been wholly unsuccessful and there are circumstances which justify an order for costs being made – Where the appellant opposes any costs order on the basis of her poor financial circumstances – Where impecuniosity in no bar to an order for costs being made where there are circumstances which otherwise justify it – Where the circumstances relied on by the respondent for indemnity costs are not “exceptional” in nature – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent on a party/party basis in default of agreement. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Where the applications were filed due to the appellant’s inability to comply with previous orders made in relation to the filing of documents – Where the appellant had already received an extension of time to file her documents – Where the appellant has clearly been granted an indulgence which placed the respondent in a position of disadvantage – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent on a party/party basis in default of agreement. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 93A and 117 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 22.39 |
| Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Reid (No 1) (2006) 151 FCR 540 |
Continue reading ZAU & UONG
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- ZAU & UONG [2016] FamCAFC 76
- Case
- [2016] FamCAFC 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined each of ZAU's complaints and found no merit in any of them. The judge's decision to dismiss the application for an adjournment and to proceed with the hearing without allowing access to a duty solicitor was justified under the circumstances. Additionally, the court held that the respondent had provided adequate disclosure and that the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence presented regarding the existence of a de facto relationship. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in the trial judge's decisions.
Further, the court addressed the applications made by ZAU in relation to the preparation of the appeal. Most of the applications had been previously dealt with, and no further orders were necessary. The court also dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, as much of it was already available at the trial and was irrelevant to the issues on appeal. Finally, the court considered the applications for costs, ordering ZAU to pay the respondent's costs on a party/party basis in default of agreement, due to her unsuccessful appeal and the respondent's justified circumstances for such an order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The application in an appeal filed by the appellant on 4 May 2015 and the amended application in an appeal filed by the appellant on 24 June 2015 be dismissed.
3.
The appellant pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to this appeal and the applications in an appeal filed by the appellant on 27 June 2014 and 11 February 2015, such costs to be assessed in default of agreement on a party / party basis.
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.