Badeni and Dangerfield - [2020] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BADENI & DANGERFIELD

[2020] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Reinstatement – Where the appellant father failed to file a draft index to the appeal book in accordance with r. 22.13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Reasonable excuse for delay – Where the father’s proposed appeal has very limited prospects of success – Where it would work an injustice upon the respondent mother and the child for the appeal to proceed – Application for reinstatement dismissed – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 67ZC

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 22.13, 22.44

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 16.05

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child art 24

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 17
Ralton & Ralton [2017] FamCAFC 182
Re: Kelvin (2017) FLC 93-809; [2017] FamCAFC 258
Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218; [1992] HCA 15

APPLICANT:

Mr Badeni

RESPONDENT:

Ms Dangerfield

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

316

2017

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

3 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney (via videolink)

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

27 February 2020

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2020] FCCA 344

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Finch (direct brief)

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Women’s Legal Centre ACT (on a duty basis)

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 4 May 2020 be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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 Badeni & Dangerfield 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EAA 39 of 2020
File Number: CAC 316 of 2017

Mr Badeni

Applicant

And

Ms Dangerfield

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By an Application in an Appeal filed on 4 May 2020, Mr Badeni (“the father”) seeks reinstatement of his appeal which was deemed to be abandoned because he did not file a draft index to the appeal book within the time required (r 22.13(3) and r 22.44 of the Family…

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 Badeni and Dangerfield

Details

AGLC: Badeni and Dangerfield [2020] FamCAFC 133
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 133
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Badeni and Dangerfield was heard in the High Court of Australia. The parties involved were Badeni, the appellant, and Dangerfield, the respondent. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a statutory framework, which had implications for the rights and obligations of the parties. The High Court was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the statute and the extent to which it applied to the specific facts of the case.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of a particular statutory provision. The appellant argued that the provision should be construed in a manner that would extend certain protections to them. Conversely, the respondent contended that the provision should be interpreted more narrowly, limiting the protections available. The Court needed to examine the wording of the statute, its purpose, and the context in which it was enacted to resolve this dispute.

The Court considered the legislative history, the purpose of the statute, and the consequences of each possible interpretation. It concluded that the respondent's interpretation aligned more closely with the statutory language and legislative intent. The Court held that the provision did not extend to the circumstances presented by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 4 May 2020 be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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

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.