2 total
Respondent awarded $25,000 in appeal costs; trial costs remitted to trial judge for reconsideration.
Following an appeal where the appellant succeeded in reducing the amount payable but failed to obtain a new trial or overturn the setting aside of a domestic contract, the court determined costs.
The respondent was deemed largely successful and awarded $25,000 in appeal costs.
The issue of trial costs, originally awarded on a substantial indemnity scale, was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of the appeal outcome.
Constructive trust set aside; equalization provided the proper remedy.
On a family law appeal arising from marriage breakdown, the court upheld the refusal of an adjournment and rejected an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge.
It also upheld the setting aside of a domestic contract under s. 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act where the respondent did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement and had no meaningful independent legal advice.
The court held that, although unjust enrichment was established, the trial judge erred by granting a proprietary constructive trust without first considering whether a monetary remedy would suffice under the Kerr framework.
The proper remedy was equalization under the Family Law Act, resulting in an equalization payment of $390,646.77 secured by a charge on the farm.
Retroactive child support from the date of separation was upheld, but interest on arrears was reduced from 10 per cent to 3 per cent, and the loan repayment order was set aside.
