FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BARRETT & BARRETT AND ANOR | [2017] FamCAFC 4 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the appellant challenged the alleged restriction on his relationship with the children and the orders for time spent – Where the appeal is opposed by the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal lack particulars and the asserted errors cannot be discerned – Where the trial judge applied the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and gave adequate reasons for her decision – Where the appellant was unable to demonstrate that the trial judge erred in the exercise of her discretion – Where there is no merit in any of the grounds of the appeal – Where the appeal is dismissed. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where no order is made as to costs. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - ss 60CC, 65DAA |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Barrett |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Barrett |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Sinclair |
| FILE NUMBER: | CSC | 379 | of | 2013 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | NA | 74 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 3 February 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | May, Strickland & Kent JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 2 August 2016 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 25 September 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FCCA 2584 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | In person |
| THE RESPONDENT: | In person (via videolink) |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Dart |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Sinclair Family Law |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
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 Barrett & Barrett and Anor 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…
Continue reading Barrett and Barrett & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Barrett and Barrett & Anor [2017] FamCAFC 4
- Case
- [2017] FamCAFC 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant's grounds of appeal did not contain sufficient particulars, making it difficult to discern any specific errors he believed the trial judge had made. The trial judge had thoroughly applied the relevant sections of the Family Law Act and provided adequate reasoning for her decision. The appellant was unable to demonstrate that the trial judge had erred in the exercise of her discretion. Consequently, there was no merit found in any of the grounds of appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and given sufficient reasons for her decision. The court also noted that no order should be made regarding costs. This decision was made in accordance with the statutory provisions and the principles of family law, ensuring the best interests of the children remained paramount.
The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed and no order as to costs was made. These orders were subject to being recorded in the court's official documents.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
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.