Anderson and Taybor - [2017] FamCA 698

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDERSON & TAYBOR

[2017] FamCA 698

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Contravention – Where allegation that the child was not made available for time ordered – Where order alleged to have been breached does not state when child is to be made available – Where evidence does not demonstrate a breach of the court order – Where Court not satisfied there is a prima facie case on mother’s application –– Where Application for Contravention dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 70NAE, 70NEA, 70NEB

APPLICANT:

Ms Anderson

RESPONDENT:

Mr Taybor

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5282

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

1 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Breeze

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lovemore Lawyers

RESPONDENT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

Mr Taybor

Orders Made on 1 September 2017

The application for contravention filed 15 May 2017 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5282 of 2008

Ms Anderson

Applicant

And

Mr Taybor

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The present application before the Court is an Amended Application – Contravention filed by the Applicant mother on 30 June 2017. The application seeks to have the father dealt with in relation to five alleged contraventions of orders made on 4 September 2009 in this Court, but in particular, order 17 of those orders which provides:
That as and from the time the child attains the age of 11 years, the mother shall spend unsupervised time with the child each alternate weekend form after school Friday to before school Monday.
It is assumed that the word “form” should be “from”.
That’s the order the subject of the mother’s application.
The mother makes five allegations of contravention. They are:
(1)That on 21 April 2017 at about 4.00 pm at Suburb R, the Respondent father without reasonable excuse refused to allow the Applicant mother to spend time with the child, S;
(2)That on 5 May 2017 at about 4.00 pm at Suburb R, the Respondent father without reasonable excuse refused to allow the Applicant mother to spend time with the child, S;
(3)That on 19 May 2017 at 4.00 pm at Suburb R, the Respondent father without reasonable excuse refused to allow the Applicant mother to spend time with the child, S;
(4)That on 2 June 2017 at about 4.00 pm at…

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 Anderson and Taybor

Details

AGLC: Anderson and Taybor [2017] FamCA 698
Case: [2017] FamCA 698
Decision Date: 1 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anderson and Taybor concerned a dispute between two parties, Anderson and Taybor, heard before Foster J. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter requiring judicial determination.

The central legal issue before the court was to ascertain the correct interpretation and application of certain legal principles relevant to the parties' dispute. This involved examining the evidence presented and the relevant legal framework to arrive at a just resolution.

Foster J's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not elaborated upon in the provided text. Therefore, a detailed explanation of the court's decision-making process and the specific legal doctrines relied upon cannot be provided.

Orders