Slater v Slater [2001] FCA 694

Slater v Slater [2001] FCA 694

The error in naming in the record did not affect the validity of the decree dissolving the marriage; the Supreme Court correctly transferred remaining property issues to the Family Court, which resolved them conclusively. There were no jurisdictional or procedural errors justifying further relief or reopening property or decree matters, and there is nothing further for the courts to determine.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Merrilee Margaret Slater; First Respondent: Walter Laurence Slater; Second Respondent: Laurence Walter Slater
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Motion / Judgment on Appeal and Related Motions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; motion refused
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Marriage, Transfer of Proceedings, Property Settlement, Correction of Orders, Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Practice and Procedure Dissolution of Marriage Transfer of Proceedings Property Settlement Correction of Orders Jurisdiction Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merrilee Margaret Slater

Appellant/applicant

Walter Laurence Slater

First Respondent

Laurence Walter Slater

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Motion / Judgment on Appeal and Related Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether errors in the entry and certification of decree nisi/absolute invalidated dissolution of marriage
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's order transferring proceedings to the Family Court was valid
  3. 3 Whether issues of property settlement remained to be determined

Ratio Decidendi

The error in naming in the record did not affect the validity of the decree dissolving the marriage; the Supreme Court correctly transferred remaining property issues to the Family Court, which resolved them conclusively. There were no jurisdictional or procedural errors justifying further relief or reopening property or decree matters, and there is nothing further for the courts to determine.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; motion refused

Orders

  • The appeal in matter A 62 of 2000 is dismissed.
  • The motion, notice of which is dated 7 May 2001, is refused.