ADAMI & ADAMI - [2015] FamCAFC 102

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADAMI & ADAMI

[2015] FamCAFC 102

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the mother seeks to expedite both the substantive appeal against interim parenting orders and orders dismissing her stay application – Where the efficient use of the court’s and parties’ resources requires that the two appeals be consolidated – Whether the matter should be afforded priority to the detriment of other cases – Where the appeal proceeding can be heard at a time where other appeals are unlikely to be dislocated – Appeals expedited.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): s 94(2D)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): rr 10A, 12.10A

APPLICANT:

Ms Adami

RESPONDENT:

Mr Adami

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

1110

2015

APPEAL NUMBERS:

EA
EA

64
72

of
of

2015
2015

DATE DELIVERED:

25 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ryan J

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2015

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

4 May 2015
15 May 2015

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2015] FCCA 1256;
[2015] FCCA 1365

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Cummings SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

York Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Bennelong Legal

Orders

Appeals EA 64 of 2015 and EA 72 of 2015 shall be heard together.
That those appeals be expedited.
Subject to any further direction by the Appeals Registrar, both appeals are listed for hearing before the Full Court to commence at 10.00 am on 16 June 2015.
The solicitors for the parties are directed to contact the Appeal Registrar forthwith for an urgent procedural hearing.
Costs of these applications to be costs in the appeal.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Adami & Adami has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Numbers: EA 64 of 2015; EA 72 of 2015
File Number: PAC 1110 of 2015

Ms Adami

Applicant

And

Mr Adami

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By an amended application in an appeal filed on 20 May 2015, Ms Adami (“the mother”) seeks an order to expedite two appeals against orders made by Judge Harman. The first is a Notice of Appeal filed 6 May 2015 (EA 64 of 2015) against interim parenting orders made on 4 May 2015. The second is a Notice of Appeal filed along with this application (EA 72 of 2015) against orders made on 15 May 2015 refusing a stay of those interim parenting orders.
The proceedings concern the parties’ daughter, X (“the child”) who was born in 2013. The interim orders provided that the child would live with the mother and spend time with the father from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm every Saturday at the home of the paternal grandparents and facilitated by their presence. This was in contrast to the mother’s application that the child’s time with the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ADAMI & ADAMI

Details

AGLC: ADAMI & ADAMI [2015] FamCAFC 102
Case: [2015] FamCAFC 102
Decision Date: 25 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adami & Adami involves an appeal against a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The parties are the applicants, seeking to appeal the decision made by the Family Court. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that the applicants are contesting a decision made by the Family Court. The matter was heard in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the appropriateness of hearing the two appeals together and the need for expediting the appeals process. The applicants argued that the appeals should be consolidated and heard together to avoid any potential inconsistencies in the outcomes and to streamline the judicial process. The court also had to consider whether the appeals warranted special attention due to the circumstances or urgency involved.

In its reasoning, the court agreed that the two appeals should indeed be heard together to maintain consistency and efficiency in the judicial process. The court recognised the importance of expediting these appeals, given the potential impact on the parties involved. The Full Court directed that the appeals be consolidated and scheduled for a hearing on 16 June 2015, starting at 10.00 am. Furthermore, the court mandated that the solicitors for the parties contact the Appeal Registrar promptly to arrange an urgent procedural hearing. The costs associated with these applications were to be borne by the parties as part of the appeal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals EA 64 of 2015 and EA 72 of 2015 shall be heard together.

That those appeals be expedited.

Subject to any further direction by the Appeals Registrar, both appeals are listed for hearing before the Full Court to commence at 10.00 am on 16 June 2015.

The solicitors for the parties are directed to contact the Appeal Registrar forthwith for an urgent procedural hearing.

Costs of these applications to be costs in the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.