Bahar and Sohrab (No. 6) - [2017] FamCA 792

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAHAR & SOHRAB (NO. 6)

[2017] FamCA 792

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Bretton & Bondai [2013] FamCAFC 168
Barker & Barker [2007] FamCA 13
Lindon v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251
Gitane v Velacruz (2008) FLC ¶93-371
Gilpin v Gilpin (1969) 17 FLR 131
Williamson v Williamson (1974) 24 FLR 226

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79A, 106A
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 10.12

APPLICANT:

Ms Bahar

RESPONDENT:

Mr Sohrab

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

1429

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

5 October 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Farrar

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Farrar Gessini Dunn

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

Noting that the Respondent’s applications of 22 November 2016 and 25 November 2016 (a reference to a minute of orders sought filed 28 November 2016), 6 March 2017, 12 April 2017, 26 April 2017 (filed on 27 April 2017) and 16 May 2017 (filed as a response to an amended application in a case filed 18 May 2017) have been consolidated by the Respondent into his minute of orders sought filed 30 May 2017 constituting 1-23 orders sought:
(a)Orders sought numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15(b), 15(c), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are dismissed;
(b)Orders sought numbered 2 and 23 are dismissed insofar as they relate to orders sought numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15(b), 15(c), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (being costs orders in relation to each of the applications); and
(c)Orders sought numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15(a), 16 and 17 and orders sought numbered 2 and 23, insofar as they relate to orders sought numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15(a), 16 and 17 are adjourned to the Registrar’s list to a date to be fixed, pending an application for the appointment of a case guardian or an application to establish that the Respondent is no longer a person under a disability.
The husband’s applications dated 6 March 2017, 12 April 2017, 27 April 2017 are dismissed.
The wife’s application in a case filed 18 April 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 Bahar & Sohrab (No. 6) 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 1429/2014

Ms Bahar

Applicant

And

Mr Sohrab

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter concerns a series…

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 Bahar and Sohrab (No. 6)

Details

AGLC: Bahar and Sohrab (No. 6) [2017] FamCA 792
Case: [2017] FamCA 792
Decision Date: 5 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bahar and Sohrab (No. 6), Gill J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered a consolidated application by the Respondent concerning various orders sought in relation to previous applications made between November 2016 and May 2017. The dispute involved applications made by both the Respondent and the husband, as well as an application by the wife.

The court was required to determine which of the Respondent's consolidated orders sought should be granted, dismissed, or adjourned. Specifically, the court had to decide on the fate of numerous proposed orders, including those relating to costs, and whether certain applications should be dismissed outright or adjourned pending further proceedings concerning the Respondent's capacity.

Gill J dismissed a significant number of the Respondent's sought orders, including those numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15(b), 15(c), 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Costs orders sought in relation to these dismissed applications were also dismissed. Orders numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15(a), 16, and 17, along with related costs orders, were adjourned to the Registrar's list, pending an application for the appointment of a case guardian or proof that the Respondent is no longer under a disability. The husband's applications of 6 March 2017, 12 April 2017, and 27 April 2017 were dismissed, as was the wife's application filed on 18 April 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

Noting that the Respondent’s applications of 22 November 2016 and 25 November 2016 (a reference to a minute of orders sought filed 28 November 2016), 6 March 2017, 12 April 2017, 26 April 2017 (filed on 27 April 2017) and 16 May 2017 (filed as a response to an amended application in a case filed 18 May 2017) have been consolidated by the Respondent into his minute of orders sought filed 30 May 2017 constituting 1-23 orders sought:

(a) Orders sought numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15(b), 15(c), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are dismissed;

(b) Orders sought numbered 2 and 23 are dismissed insofar as they relate to orders sought numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15(b), 15(c), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (being costs orders in relation to each of the applications); and

(c) Orders sought numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15(a), 16 and 17 and orders sought numbered 2 and 23, insofar as they relate to orders sought numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15(a), 16 and 17 are adjourned to the Registrar’s list to a date to be fixed, pending an application for the appointment of a case guardian or an application to establish that the Respondent is no longer a person under a disability.

The husband’s applications dated 6 March 2017, 12 April 2017, 27 April 2017 are dismissed.

The wife’s application in a case filed 18 April 2017 is dismissed.

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.