Appeal – when to appeal and when the cost is too great.  It is not enough to be simply unhappy with an outcome at trial and whilst it may be a ‘knee jerk reaction’ to want to launch an appeal the parties should all be cognisant of the costs both of the appeal itself and the possibility of being ordered to pay the other party’s costs.

Sheridan & Delany (No 2)  [2025] FedCFamC1A 38

This was an appeal before Schonell J from a decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia (Magistrates Court), with Judgment delivered on 7 March 2025.  It was somewhat strange because the proceedings in the lower court had been undefended meaning that the appellant husband didn’t involve himself in those proceedings other than to constantly challenge the jurisdiction of the Court.  He did not file any documents or provide disclosure but did attend the hearing and cross-examined the wife, who was the applicant in those proceedings.  The husband also challenged the value of the home but provided no evidence as to what he asserted the value to be.  The trial Judge made Orders for property distribution as to 35% to the appellant husband and 65% to the respondent wife.

The husband then appealed citing three grounds.  His Honour, Schonell J, dealt with Ground 3 first as it related to a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.  Part of the appellant’s argument was that the Magistrates Court is a Star Chamber.  His Honour found no merit in this ground.

Ground 1 was that the home was grossly undervalued, a ground doomed to failure given that the appellant had not provided any evidence in the lower proceedings as to the value and did not shake the respondent in cross-examination.

Ground 2 was in respect of the division of 35/65 in favour of the respondent.  The appellant did not offer any submission as to an incorrect exercise of discretion.  His Honour found that no error had been established.

Having found all grounds were without merit the appeal was dismissed and then heard submissions as to costs.  It is noted that both parties were self-represented on appeal and accordingly a fixed sum of $3,000 was ordered, presumably to cover the respondent’s out of pocket expenditure.