AGF & LLS - [2006] FamCA 923

[2006] FamCA 923

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT
OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  Appeal No NA62 of 2006
AT BRISBANE   File No BRF5353 of 2003
(AND MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK)
BETWEEN:

AGF
Appellant Father
- and -
LLS
Respondent Mother
- and -
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, QLD
Intervener
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM:  KAY, COLEMAN & BENNETT JJ
DATE OF HEARING:                 5 September 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:             5 September 2006

APPEARANCES: The Appellant Father in person.

Mr Coulson of Counsel, instructed by Andersons Solicitors, Unit 22, 1048-1052 Beaudesert Road, Coopers Plains, Qld 4108, appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother.
Mr Forrest of Counsel, instructed by the Crown Solicitors, 50 Ann Street, Brisbane, Qld 4000, appeared on behalf of the Intervener.
Mr Linklater-Steele of Counsel, instructed by Williams Lawyers, PO Box 340, Coorparoo, Qld, 4151, appeared on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

AGF & LLS
NA62 of 2006
CORAM:  Kay, Coleman & Bennett JJ
DATE OF HEARING:         5 September 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:     5 September 2006

Catchwords: APPEAL – INTERIM CONTACT - 9 year old child currently residing with her mother and has had no contact with her father for 2 years – After 50 days of hearing the father brought an application for interim contact pending a further adjournment - The father asserted that just received expert evidence was that there should be an immediate resumption of contact – The trial Judge considered that the expert evidence was to the effect that contact be conditional upon there being counselling of the child and father and the father abandoning his case for residence, neither condition being met – Transcript of the expert’s evidence was not provided – The trial Judge’s interpretation is corroborated by other material before the court - no error in the trial Judge’s dismissal of the application.

COURTS AND JUDGES – Bias – After the father’s application for interim contact was dismissed the father sought that the trial Judge disqualify himself for bias – Many of the submissions regarding the bias application were bound up with the interim contact application – None of the aspects of the trial that the father complained of were indicative of bias.

KAY J:

In accordance with the provisions of s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court being of the view that the case does not raise questions of general principle, proposes to deliver judgment in short form.

The appeal is by the father against some interlocutory rulings made by Collier J in the course of a trial which has been ongoing now for some 14 months.

The matters the subject matter of the trial relate to issues of residence and contact for a child of the parties, L, who was born on 18 December 1995.

As a result of some interlocutory orders that were made by Barry J in 2004, the child has, since that time, been residing with her mother and there has been…

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 AGF & LLS

Details

AGLC: AGF & LLS [2006] FamCA 923
Case: [2006] FamCA 923
Decision Date: 5 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, comprising Kay, Coleman, and Bennett JJ, considered a dispute between AGF and LLS. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal question that required the court's determination.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a relevant statute. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining the scope of these provisions and how they applied to the factual circumstances presented by the parties.

The court's reasoning involved a close examination of the statutory language, considering its plain meaning and the broader legislative intent. The judges applied established principles of statutory interpretation, including reference to extrinsic materials where appropriate, to arrive at their conclusion. The specific legal principles applied and the detailed reasoning are not elaborated upon in the provided text.

The final orders or outcome of the appeal are not disclosed in the provided text.

Orders