Appeal dismissed despite error in law in primary judgment
Spalla & Spalla [2023] FedCFamC1A 87 (8 June 2023)
The appellant, Mr. Spalla, appealed the final property orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division, arguing that the primary judge erred in construing a deed made between the parties as decisive of a property settlement within the meaning of the Family Law Act.
Facts:
- The parties, Mr. and Ms. Spalla, were married in 1978 in Country B and have two adult children.
- They acquired property in Australia including a house at T Street, Suburb U, which was purchased in August 2012 and registered in the names of the appellant (Mr. Spalla - 5 per cent) and the respondent (Ms. Spalla - 95 per cent).
- The appellant was involved in legal proceedings with Insurer E, resulting in the insurance company obtaining a judgment debt and causing a writ to be registered on the title of the Suburb U property.
- In January 2014, the parties entered into a Deed of Settlement and Release ("the Deed") with Insurer E to resolve this dispute.
- At the time they entered into the Deed, the primary judge found that the parties had separated.
Following this, Insurer E were paid $50,000 from borrowings against the Suburb U property and the writ was removed from its title. - The Suburb U property was sold in July 2016, and Ms. Spalla applied these proceeds to purchase a rural property solely under her name.
- The appellant then sought final property orders through an Initiating Application filed on 7 May 2020.
- The main issue of this appeal revolves around whether or not the Deed between both parties acted as a final property settlement within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), thus prohibiting any further claims for relief by Mr. Spalla under this Act.
IRAC Analysis:
Issue: The main issues in the case are:
Whether the primary judge erred in appointing a case guardian based on the provided medical evidence.
Whether the Deed of Settlement and Release was decisive in any claim for relief under the Family Law Act 1975.
Whether, by virtue of the Deed, the appellant was estopped from seeking relief under the Family Law Act 1975.
Whether it was just and equitable to make a property settlement order under section 79(1) Family Law Act 1975.
Rule: Under Australian law, and specifically the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), parties may enter into binding financial agreements that detail how their property and financial resources will be dealt with if their relationship breaks down. However, such an agreement can only oust the court's jurisdiction if it is a final order or a qualifying financial agreement (Woodcock v Woodcock).
Application:
The first ground of appeal was abandoned as it was not a valid ground of appeal given that no leave to appeal was sought as required by Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). 2 & 3.
The Deed entered into by the parties with Insurer E was found to have estopped the appellant from making further claims against the respondent in relation to property or personal maintenance. However, this was an error by the primary judge as per Woodcock v Woodcock, which states that only a final order or a qualifying financial agreement can oust the court's jurisdiction. Despite this error, since the primary judge considered other factors to dismiss appellant's application, this error did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
The primary judge applied Stanford v Stanford principles and concluded that given how parties had organized their financial affairs at separation and subsequently, it would not be just and equitable to adjust parties' interests in assets now in their respective possession.
Conclusion: While there were errors in judgement made by the primary judge, these did not result in a miscarriage of justice due to his consideration of alternate factors leading to dismissal of appellant's application. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against appellant due to his being wholly unsuccessful in his appeal.
Parties:
- Appellant: Mr. Spalla
- Respondent: Ms. Spalla
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Masters
Solicitor for the Appellant: Marjason & Marjason Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Winfield
Solicitor for the Respondent: Zali Burrows at Law