Mayne and Mayne

Case [2012] FamCAFC 56

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAYNE & MAYNE [2012] FamCAFC 56
FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Leave to file further written submissions  - Where the appellant sought to respond to issues raised in the respondent's submissions - leave granted
APPELLANT: Ms Mayne
RESPONDENT: Mr Mayne
FILE NUMBER: CAC 114 of 2009
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 78 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 27 April 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra
PLACE HEARD: Canberra
JUDGMENT OF: Faulks DCJ, May and Strickland JJ
HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions filed on 30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 5 June 2009
LOWER COURT MNC: [2009] FMCAfam 559

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Watkins
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Strong Law Pty Ltd
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Howard
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Farrar Gesini & Dunn

Orders

  1. That the appellant be given leave to file further written submissions and a minute of orders sought in response to the submissions of the husband filed


    30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012.

  2. That the appellant file such submissions and minute of orders sought on or before 4:00pm on 11 May 2012.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mayne & Mayne has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

Appeal Number: EA 78  of 2009
File Number: CAC  114  of 2009

Ms Mayne

Appellant

And

Mr Mayne

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In the submissions filed on behalf of the wife on 6 February 2012, particularly in the first paragraph, it is complained that “the respondent has sought to contend matters which were not the subject of the appeal, nor were they dealt with on appeal”. In the sixth paragraph of those submissions, it is said that “The respondent’s submissions ought be rejected. If the respondent’s submissions are to be considered, natural justice would dictate that leave ought be granted to the appellant to be heard further.”

  2. In our view, it would be appropriate to allow the appellant to file further submissions. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Faulks DCJ, May and Strickland JJ) delivered on 27 April 2012.

Legal Associate: 

Date:  27 April 2012

Details
AGLC
Mayne and Mayne [2012] FamCAFC 56
Case
[2012] FamCAFC 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mayne and Mayne involved the appellant and the respondent who were engaged in a dispute over the distribution of assets following their separation. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The appellant sought to file further written submissions in response to the submissions made by the respondent on 30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted leave to file these additional submissions and, if so, by what deadline.

The court considered the procedural fairness of allowing the appellant to respond to the respondent's submissions, especially given the respondent had already filed their submissions. The court noted the importance of allowing parties to fully present their cases and the potential for prejudice if one party is not given an opportunity to respond to new arguments raised by the other. It was determined that the appellant should be permitted to file further submissions to ensure that both parties had an equal opportunity to be heard. The court then set a deadline for these submissions, ensuring that the proceedings could continue in an orderly fashion.

Consequently, the court granted the appellant leave to file further written submissions and a minute of orders sought by 4:00pm on 11 May 2012. This decision aimed to maintain procedural fairness and allow the appellant to address the respondent's submissions comprehensively. The court's ruling facilitated a more equitable presentation of arguments and ensured that the proceedings adhered to the principles of due process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appellant be given leave to file further written submissions and a minute of orders sought in response to the submissions of the husband filed

30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012.

2.

That the appellant file such submissions and minute of orders sought on or before 4:00pm on 11 May 2012.

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.