Some of the recent decisions of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia are as follows (for more details, click on the links):

• Cabadas & Cabadas [2019] FamCAFC 17911 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the husband appeals from final property orders – Where the trial judge found the date of separation to be 28 August 2015 – Where the parties’ property interests totalled $901,078.63 – Where both parties concede that the trial judge erroneously included in that total as a notional asset of the husband a figure of $130,176 representing “cattle sales – post-separation” – Where the trial judge took no account of the husband’s longstanding dependence upon income from cattle sales for his livelihood – Where the trial judge gave no consideration to the fact that reasonably incurred expenditure by the husband had to be taken into account as an offset to the gross amount of cattle sales income – Where error is established sufficient for the appeal to be allowed – Where the wife is granted a costs certificate pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for her costs of the appeal.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RE-EXERCISE – Where both parties sought this Court re-exercise the discretion rather than remit the proceedings – Where s 79(2) is readily satisfied – Where the parties agreed to adopt the values of property as found by the trial judge other than those successfully challenged on appeal – Where the majority  of the parties’ property interests consist of the former matrimonial property consisting of two lots – Where the husband sought an equal distribution of property overall – Where the wife sought a finding of an equal contributions-based entitlement but a 3 per cent uplift in her favour to account for the husband’s non-disclosure – Where neither party addressed the Court on a guarantee given by the parties for a loan taken out by their son – Where such guarantee ought be included as a liability – Where the parties’ right to subrogation ought be included as an asset – Where a finding of equal contributions is appropriate – Where no adjustment pursuant to s 75(2) is called for – Where an equal division of the parties’ property interests is just and equitable in all the circumstances – Where the husband offered no evidence in support of his orders seeking only one lot of the former matrimonial property be sold – Where the entirety of the property must be sold.
• Metford & Faddin [2019] FamCAFC 17611 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the father seeks an extension of time to appeal from a costs order against him fixed in the sum of $6,000 – Where a sum of $4,682 for costs was fixed following an application brought about due to the father having retained the children on some five occasions contrary to orders – Where the father’s Notice of Appeal raises no substantial issue – Where the mother should not be prejudiced by being subjected to a meritless appeal – Application dismissed.
• Kellner & Kellner and Anor [2019] FamCAFC 17811 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the trial judge divided the parties’ property interests in the proportions of 70 per cent to the de facto wife and 30 per cent to the de facto husband – Where the trial judge found that the de facto husband’s post-separation conduct was the only factor justifying an adjustment to the parties’ equal contributions-based entitlements – Where the trial judge granted a 10 per cent uplift to the de facto wife pursuant to the s 75(2) factors – Where the de facto husband’s challenges on appeal relate solely to complaints of procedural fairness – Where there are no specific challenges to the findings of fact made by the trial judge or, beyond the assertions of denials of procedural fairness, that the trial judge acted on wrong principle or made any errors of law – Where Ground 1 was abandoned – Where neither of the remaining two grounds raise any question of general principle – Where only short reasons are required – Consideration of the extent of a trial judge’s obligations under Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072 – Where a trial judge is not bound to specifically inform a party that if they fail to put their case to the other party in cross-examination, the other party’s evidence may be accepted – Where the determinative issue, being the de facto husband’s significant failure to provide full and frank disclosure, did not rest on the de facto wife’s evidence – Appeal dismissed – Where the de facto husband is ordered to pay the de facto wife’s costs of the appeal on a party/party basis fixed in the sum of $30,000.
• Harrell & Hancock-Harrell [2019] FamCAFC 17711 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – FAMILY VIOLENCE – Parenting orders – Where the absence of the trial transcript could not be permitted to undermine the presumption in favour of the correctness of the decision – Where the conclusion that the appellant posed an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the child was available – Where the primary judge was entitled to accept the evidence of the single expert – Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Where findings that the appellant engaged in family violence were open – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Further evidence on appeal – Where the majority of evidence sought to be adduced was either before the primary judge or irrelevant – Application allowed in part.FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the appellant is an undischarged bankrupt in receipt of welfare benefits – Where the appellant has been wholly unsuccessful – Greater weight placed on the appellant’s lack of success and that the respondent incurred legal expenses unnecessarily – Order made for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs within six months.
• Whyatt & Chadwin [2019] FamCAFC 17503 Oct 2019APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant has misunderstood the liberty to apply order made by the Magistrate – Where there is no ground of appeal set out in the appellant’s Notice of Appeal which identifies appealable error by the Magistrate – Where the order for costs made by the Magistrate arose from an exercise of his Honour’s discretion and the amount the appellant was ordered to pay was far less than that which was sought by the respondent – Where there is no reasonable chance of success – Appeal dismissed. 
  
• Stammler & Stammler [2019] FamCAFC 17402 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONSENT – Where the parties agree that the appeal should be allowed, the order appealed be set aside, and the matter be remitted for rehearing – Where there is a basis here for leave to appeal to be granted and for the appeal to be allowed – Where it is conceded that the Magistrate was led into error as a result of incorrect facts put by the respondent in relation to his income – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Order set aside – Proceedings remitted to the Magistrates Court of Western Australia for rehearing by a Magistrate other than the trial Magistrate. 
  
• Bindon & Beatham [2019] FamCAFC 17302 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATE – Where partway through the hearing the applicant left the courtroom stating that she was withdrawing the appeal – Where there was no appeal to withdraw it having been abandoned as a result of her failure to file appeal books within time – Where it was not clear whether the applicant also withdrew her Application in an Appeal the subject of the hearing which sought reinstatement of her appeal deemed abandoned – Application adjourned to enable the applicant to consider her position in relation to whether she intends to pursue the application or withdraw it.
• Diglen & Keartley (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 17209 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent seeks her costs on an indemnity basis and in the alternative on a party and party basis – Where the appellant opposes any order for costs but submits that if this Court is minded to make such an order that it be on a party and party basis and only apply to costs incurred within a specific timeframe – Where the husband has the capacity to meet a costs order and the financial circumstances of the wife do not militate against such an order being made – Where the appeal was not dismissed on its merits but because the appellant chose to withdraw it – Where the failure to comply with an order of this Court, the finding that the one remaining challenge had no merit, and the withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant provide a constellation of circumstances justifying an order for costs being made – Where the circumstances are not of an exceptional nature so as to permit costs being awarded on an indemnity basis – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs on a party and party basis fixed in the sum of $6,712.28.
• Dobey & Shey (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 17104 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DISQUALIFICATION – Appeal against dismissal of recusal application – Apprehended bias – Prejudgment – Comments by judge as to disposition of the case without regard to the evidence relied on by the other party – Comments by judge made in the absence of a party – Failure to disclose ex parte comments – Appeal allowed – Remitted for rehearing.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Interim spousal maintenance – Interim distribution of property – Where the success of the disqualification appeal means that the orders will be set aside – Appeal rendered otiose – Appeal dismissed.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Costs certificates to issue to both parties.
• Zubcic & Zubcic and Anor [2019] FamCAFC 16809 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – TRUSTS – Where the wife asserts the trial Judge made an error by finding that the second respondent had a beneficial interest in a property either via a resulting trust or a constructive trust – Where it was open to find that either a resulting or constructive trust arose – No error demonstrated.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the wife asserts that the trial Judge failed to take into account the wife’s ongoing care of the parties’ adult son with disability when assessing contributions pursuant to the s 75(2) factors – Where the trial Judge erred in finding that it was only the wife’s financial responsibilities to be taken into account under s 75(2) – Where the court is able to re-exercise the discretion – Where an adjustment is made in favour of the wife in relation to her ongoing care of the adult child resulting in an overall division of property as to 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband – Where the trial judge overlooked a joint debt of the parties and a payment by the wife for costs in relation to the sale of a property – Where the remaining grounds of appeal lacked merit – Appeal allowed in part and orders varied.FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where only one substantial ground of appeal has been successful – Where that ground of appeal was an error made by the trial judge and the parties did not lead her Honour into that error – Where the wife’s costs are unreasonable – Where it is impossible to be certain of the amount of costs sought by the husband that relate to the appeal – Where no order for costs is made between the husband and the wife – Where the wife is to pay the costs of the second respondent – Where it is not appropriate to issue costs certificates to the parties.
• Estate of the late Carney & Carney [2019] FamCAFC 16604 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal by the estate of the deceased husband against property settlement orders – Where the primary judge found that  contributions of the husband and the wife to their property and to the welfare of the family were equal – Whether the primary judge erred by making a 10 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife – Whether the amount of the adjustment made by the primary judge was out of all proportion to the wife’s needs – Where the adjustment made was not out of all proportionality to the likely expenses of the wife – Where the adjustment made by the primary judge was within the ambit of a reasonable exercise of discretion – Whether the primary judge engaged with and made relevant findings in relation to disputed issues as to contributions – Where the premises on which the estate’s contentions are based cannot be made out and the grounds fail – Whether the primary judge was obliged to take into account the terms of the husband’s will – Where a testator’s intentions in relation to the disposition of their property on their death should not override the considerations mandated by the Court in s 79(4) and s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where no grounds of appeal succeed – Appeal dismissed – The estate to pay the wife’s costs of the appeal, as agreed, or in default of agreement, as assessed.
• Phillips & Hansford (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 16504 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against interim parenting orders – Whether the primary judge erred by making an interim order without conducting a Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 hearing – Whether the primary judge gave consideration to the necessary s 60CC considerations – Where the primary judge did not err and did not deny the parties procedural fairness by not conducting a Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 hearing – Where the primary judge had regard to relevant s 60CC considerations – No merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – Written submissions to be provided as to costs.FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the mother sought to adduce further evidence that was likely to be controversial – Where the evidence was not admissible – Application dismissed.
• Zao & Lee [2019] FamCAFC 16904 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Where the primary judge dismissed the appellant wife’s application for summary dismissal – Where the appellant wife sought summary dismissal on the basis that the respondent husband failed to provide adequate disclosure – Where the appellant wife submits that the primary judge erred by failing to admit exhibits to affidavits into evidence – Where the contents of the exhibits to the affidavits were before the Court and were taken into account by the primary judge – Application of r 11.02 and r 13.14 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where no substantial injustice flows from any error of the primary judge – Where leave to appeal was required but was not sought in the Notice of Appeal – Where leave was granted to amend the Notice of Appeal to include an application for leave to appeal – Where the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent husband did not comply with the Registrar’s direction for a costs schedule to be filed and served no later than seven days prior to the first day of the sittings in which the appeal is listed – Where the respondent husband did not comply with the Registrar’s direction for a schedule of costs to be sought at the scale prescribed by the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) –  Where there was no explanation for the failure to comply – Where the Court will not extend time for the costs schedule to be filed in accordance with the Registrar’s directions – No order as to costs.
• Stringer & Nissen [2019] FamCAFC 17002 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against interim parenting orders – Where the settled reasons were not provided to the parties before the expiration of the appeal period – Where the orders involve a young child and significant change to the child’s arrangements – Where some of the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable – Where the failure to file a Notice of Appeal in a timely way was not the appellant’s fault – Where interests of the child justify extension of time.FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Costs to be costs in the appeal.
• Oswin & Oswin [2019] FamCAFC 16426 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – Where the primary judge found the mother had contravened parenting orders providing for equal shared parental responsibility without reasonable excuse – Where this was the first contravention application with respect to parenting orders made some three years earlier – Where the father sought the imposition of a bond – Where the primary judge imposed a sentence of seven days imprisonment suspended for two years – Where it must follow that the primary judge was obliged to apply the criminal standard of proof – Where the primary judge failed to fulfil the mandatory statutory requirement to give reasons for finding that no other penalty was appropriate – Where investigation of available options for schooling did not constitute a unilateral “decision” about a major long-term issue – Where the mother had declined to sign passport forms which the father had not completed or signed – Where, on the whole of the evidence, it was not reasonably open to the primary judge to find any contravention on the criminal standard or the civil standard of proof – Where the appeal was conceded – Appeal allowed and the findings of contravention and the order for imprisonment set aside – Where the father’s Application-Contravention at first instance is dismissed – Costs certificates ordered.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – Where the mother was self-represented with no relevant legal training – Where the primary judge failed to sufficiently explain to the mother the relevant law to be applied and procedure – Where neither party was afforded any opportunity to make submissions as to whether the application was to proceed under Subdivision E or under Subdivision F of Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the failure of the primary judge to provide that explanation to the mother and to invite her submissions upon the point was a fundamental failure to provide procedural fairness to the mother – Where the primary judge was not attentive to the fundamental distinction between Subdivision E and Subdivision F of Division 13A – Where the primary judge impermissibly intervened in cross-examination – Where the primary judge’s comments bespeak pre-judgment or predetermination – Where such interventions amount to a denial of procedural fairness – Where the primary judge did not afford the mother the opportunity to be heard as to sentence.
• Milen & Milen (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 16701 Oct 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent seeks costs on an indemnity basis –  Where the financial circumstances of the parties do not militate against an order for costs being made in favour of the respondent – Where as a result of the appeal being dismissed, the appellant was wholly unsuccessful, and that circumstance alone is a powerful circumstance justifying an order for costs – Where the appeal was commenced in circumstances where, properly advised, the appellant should have known that it had no chance of success – Where there are exceptional circumstances which allow for the costs ordered to be calculated on an indemnity basis – Costs ordered on an indemnity basis to be as assessed or taxed in the event of there being no agreement as to the same.
• Herbert & Herbert [2019] FamCAFC 14930 Aug 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals interim parenting orders – Where the orders discharged a previous interim order made which provided for the mother to spend unsupervised time with the children in alternate weekends – Where a Recovery order was issued – Where the Recovery order has expired so the appeal in that regard has no utility – Where the mothers application to adduce further evidence is dismissed on the basis that the material that the mother seeks to adduce is not relevant to the issues on the appeal – Where there is no merit in the grounds that the mother agitates – Appeal dismissed.
• Walsh & Maher [2019] FamCAFC 16225 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the Applicant was six weeks late in filing the Notice of Appeal – Where the judgment and orders were delivered by telephone and the final judgment delivered in writing one month later – Where the delay is explained – Where the appeal has merit  – Application allowed.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where it was asserted the father was in breach of orders and should not be heard – Application dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent sought an order for costs in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Costs order made.
• Tong & Niem [2019] FamCAFC 16123 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the father seeks to expedite his appeal against orders dismissing his application that the primary judge be disqualified by reason of alleged apprehended bias – Where final hearing involves significant issues – Appeal in relation to the constitution of the court to be afforded reasonable priority – Application granted.
• Rich & Shorland (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 16325 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was successful – Where the appellant sought that the respondent pay the appellants costs – Where in the alternative the appellant sought a costs certificate – Costs certificates also sought by the respondent – Where appeal succeeded on an error of law – Costs certificates granted to both parties for the appeal and the rehearing of the application.
• Luu & Kaa [2019] FamCAFC 16019 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where interim orders made requiring money held in the parties’ offset accounts to pay off the mortgage over the former matrimonial home as well as the sale of this and another property – Where proceeds of sales ordered to allow the wife to settle the purchase of a unit – Where the husband wishes to retain the former matrimonial home – Where the husband seeks that the appeal hearing be expedited –Where rule 12.10A(1) and (4) relevant – Where the primary judge relied on section 80(1)(k) to make the order – Where presumably the primary judge instead intended to refer to section 90SS because the parties were in a de facto relationship, not married – Where if no expedition ordered the husband’s appeal will be made irrelevant and he will suffer irreversible prejudice – Order made for expedition. 
  
• Yabon & Tabano [2019] FamCAFC 15917 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME – Where ex tempore reasons were delivered – Where no written reasons were available to file a notice of appeal within the specified time – Where application was allowed. 
  
• Goulder & Jessett [2019] FamCAFC 15817 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR EXPEDITION – Where the mother seeks expedition of his appeal against interim parenting orders – Where the substantive proceedings are listed for final hearing on 18 December 2019 – Whether there is a relevant circumstance which would cause the case to be given priority over other cases and to their possible detriment – Application dismissed. 
  
• Petchey & Petchey (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 15718 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where only two grounds of appeal are potentially competent – Where there is no merit in either of the grounds of appeal, nor in any of the complaints made by the appellant in his “brief summary of argument” or his “Pre-argument Statement” – Appeal dismissed.FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondent seeks her costs – Where the appellant has been wholly unsuccessful – Costs awarded in favour of the respondent in the sum of $13,108.89.
• Yau & Lac [2019] FamCAFC 15618 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – TRANSCRIPT – Where the applicant seeks that the court provide the transcript relevant to her appeal at its own expense – Where the applicant has not satisfied this Court as to her financial circumstances and why she needs the transcript she seeks – Where the merits of the appeal are seriously in doubt given that it is difficult to discern from the applicant’s grounds of appeal what appealable errors are asserted – Where the application stands dismissed.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the further evidence comprises matters that have occurred or arisen since the orders the subject of the appeal were made – Where it has not been demonstrated that receipt of the further evidence would reveal error by the trial judge or would have produced a different result if it had been available at trial – Where it is not apparent that the evidence is admissible and there is no doubt that it is controversial – Application dismissed.
• Hencken & Dow [2019] FamCAFC 15411 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DIVORCE – Where the husband appeals the making of a divorce order on the basis that there was a reasonable likelihood of the parties’ relationship being resumed – Where the husband appeals the primary judge’s refusal to allow cross-examination of the wife to explore the possibility of reconciliation and to persuade the wife to attend marriage counselling – Where the primary judge is entitled to refuse cross-examination of a witness as it was found to be an abuse of process – Where there is nothing equivocal in the evidence of the wife as to her attitude towards reconciliation  – No error is established – Whether the primary judge failed to give proper weight to the “statutory mandate” in s 43 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where s 43 is no more than context to the legislative intention – Where there is no merit in this ground of appeal – Where the husband contends that her Honour erred in making an order abridging the time in which the divorce order was to become final on the basis of special circumstances – Adequacy of reasons for special circumstances – Where her Honour made findings that entitled her to abridge the time – No error is established – Appeal dismissed – Order made for the divorce to become final immediately – Husband ordered to pay the wife’s costs. 
  
• Marsey & Marsey [2019] FamCAFC 14829 Aug 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INTERIM PARENTING – Where the primary judge erred in making an order for sole parental responsibility without allowing the parties the opportunity to make submissions – Appeal allowed in part – Matter remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted. 
  
• Meadis & Meadis and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 14602 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEALS – COSTS – Where the appellant father consented to an order that his appeal be dismissed during the appeal hearing – Where the father is unrepresented – Where the respondent mother sought an order for costs – Where the father opposed an order for costs due to his impecuniosity – Where the father is incarcerated and relies on his parents for financial support – Where neither the mother or the father is in receipt of legal aid – Where the father’s conduct warrants an order for costs – Where the father is ordered to pay a portion of the mother’s costs – Appeal dismissed.
• Kabra & Sachin [2019] FamCAFC 15512 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father’s Amended Notice of Appeal did not contain identifiable and competent grounds of appeal – Where the father fell into the trap of simply looking to rerun his case in the Court below – Where the father failed to identify any appealable error made by the Magistrate and nor is error apparent – Where none of the complaints made by the father have merit – Appeal dismissed.
• Ellwood & Ravenhill [2019] FamCAFC 15306 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – INITIATING PROCEEDINGS – Section 60I certificate – Where the father initiated proceedings without having undertaken family dispute resolution – Where the subject Initiating Application did not fall within an exception in s 60I(9) – Where the primary judge made orders notwithstanding there being no s 60I certificate – Where the primary judge was in error in proceeding to hear the father’s application not having made any finding to the effect that any of the exceptions in subsection (9) applied – Consideration of s 60I(11) – Where the purpose of s 60I(11) is to preserve the integrity of proceedings and orders made where, for example, perhaps through oversight subsection (7) is not complied with – Where the subject orders likely do not fail for want of jurisdiction but the failure to apply subsection (7) amounts to legal error – Appeal allowed.
• Dickens & Dickens [2019] FamCAFC 15004 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION – Where the Registrar rejected an Application in an Appeal for filing as an abuse of process – Application in an appeal allowed in part.FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENAS – Where the applicant seeks leave to issue subpoenas in preparation of an appeal – Where documents previously produced to the Court were mistakenly destroyed – Where the applicant seeks to reconstruct exhibits and subpoena parties to reproduce those documents to the Court – Court directed to notify the recipients who previously produced documents to reproduce those documents – Appellant granted leave to inspect those documents. Appellant denied leave to copy documents.
• Bader & Spinner [2019] FamCAFC 15203 Sep 2019FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONSENT – Where the parties agree that the appeal be allowed, that the orders appealed be set aside, that the matter be remitted for rehearing and costs certificates issue pursuant to ss 9, 6 and 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – Where appealable error is demonstrated and the appeal should succeed – Where there are a lack of adequate reasons provided by the trial judge – Where the appeal is properly characterised as a Federal appeal, it will succeed on a question of law and it has been listed in a public and formal way – Where the parties have been put to unnecessary expense in pursuing the appeal and the matter must be re-litigated – Appeal allowed – Orders set aside – Proceedings remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for rehearing by a judge other than the trial judge – Costs certificates issued as sought by the parties.