31 Oct 2017
Because the appellant's Calderbank offer of $800,000 was unreasonably rejected and the respondent's conduct (including refiled submissions and failure to cooperate on a joint memorandum) increased the appellant's costs, the court awarded 2B scale costs with a 20% uplift under r14.6(3), resulting in costs of $20,337 plus disbursements of $1,820; Family Court costs were left to the Family Court to determine.
15 Apr 2016
There is no special onus on a spouse applying for maintenance; the Family Court correctly applied ss63-64 and s64A and was entitled to find the wife’s reasonable needs were $8,509 per month and that qualifying circumstances existed; the husband had means (direct and indirect, including family trust/inheritance and rental income) to meet maintenance; delay is not of itself disentitling; appellate court may adjust quantum and terms in exercise of its review function — accordingly Family Court orders were set aside as to quantum and substituted with a reduced lump-sum payment and interest/terms…
18 Dec 2013
The High Court upheld the primary judge's factual findings that the insured had bled the brakes prior to the trip, that the brakes subsequently failed causing the accident, and that QBE failed to prove fraud or tampering; expert Barton was preferred to QBE's investigator on credibility and technical grounds; the only error was the use of an 11% interest rate where the prescribed rate in force for the period was 8.4%, so the appeal was allowed solely to correct the interest calculation and the judgment sum was adjusted accordingly.
18 Apr 2013
The appeal was allowed because the District Court failed adequately to assess and explain quantum of damages and erred in not finding that Mrs Spooner engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s9 Fair Trading Act 1986; Spooner Commercial and Mrs Spooner are liable and the matter is remitted to the District Court to reassess damages with proper analysis and evidence. The District Court was not required to separately decide liability under the Contractual Remedies Act once contractual breach was found but the quantum assessment was insufficiently reasoned.
4 Oct 2011
The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual findings that the property purchased in 1984 was acquired in contemplation of marriage and intended for the parties' common use and benefit, that rental income was relationship property, and that the delay to marriage was explicable; the appeal was dismissed. The Family Court's refusal to hear submissions on costs was remitted for reconsideration because the pre-trial Calderbank offer should have been able to be addressed before a costs decision was made.