Bellmore & Ferres - [2023] FedCFamC1A 132

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Bellmore & Ferres [2023] FedCFamC1A 132

Appeal from: Ferres & Bellmore [2023] FedCFamC1F 363

Appeal number: NAA 203 of 2023

File number: BRC 7266 of 2012

Judgment of: AUSTIN J

Date of judgment: 11 August 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Practice and procedure – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where grounds upon which a discretionary judgment may be challenged on appeal are well known – Where the single ground of appeal does not fall within the rubric of those principles – Where the appeal is bereft of any legitimate contention of appealable error – Where the appeal is incompetent – Where the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success in its current form – Appeal dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, s 102NA and s 69ZX

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 32 and s 46

Cases cited: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Number of paragraphs: 13

Date of hearing: 11 August 2023

Place: Newcastle (via video link)

Solicitor for the Appellant: Litigant in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Northside Family Law Centre

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Wallace Perkins Family Law
ORDERS

NAA 203 of 2023
BRC 7266 of 2012

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR BELLMORE

Appellant

AND:
MS FERRES

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 august 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is summarily dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bellmore & Ferres has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AUSTIN J:

This appeal was listed today for the appellant to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed pursuant to s 46(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (“the FCFCA Act”), on account of it having no reasonable prospect of success.
The appellant was unable to discharge the onus and so the appeal is summarily dismissed.
Background
The parties contested parenting proceedings under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).
The trial was conducted over several days in February and March 2023. The appellant was not legally represented, though that…

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 Bellmore & Ferres

Details

AGLC: Bellmore & Ferres [2023] FedCFamC1A 132
Case: [2023] FedCFamC1A 132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bellmore & Ferres involved a dispute between the appellant and the respondent regarding parenting arrangements for their child under the Family Law Act 1975. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), where the trial was conducted over several days in early 2023. The appellant, who chose not to be legally represented, faced limitations due to section 102NA of the Act, which prevented him from personally cross-examining the respondent. The primary judge delivered ex tempore reasons on the final day of the trial and made interim orders before issuing final orders on 19 July 2023. These final orders granted sole parental responsibility to the respondent, with the child residing with the respondent and spending regular time with the appellant during school terms and holidays. The appellant appealed against all 39 orders, arguing that the trial was unnecessarily prolonged, the respondent disregarded court orders, and the primary judge failed to consider evidence of the respondent's mental health issues while unjustly removing his parental rights.

The legal issues in this appeal centred on whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to challenge the primary judge's discretionary decision. The appellant's sole ground of appeal was broad and encompassed several grievances, including the length of the trial, the respondent's alleged non-compliance with orders, the primary judge's failure to address evidence of the respondent's mental health, and the alleged unjust removal of the appellant's parental responsibilities. The court had to determine if these complaints constituted valid grounds for appeal, given the well-established principles for challenging discretionary judgments and other potential forms of appealable error.

The court found that none of the appellant's complaints aligned with the recognised grounds for challenging discretionary judgments. The complaints did not constitute judicial bias, a deprivation of procedural fairness, or an inadequacy of reasons. Moreover, the ground of appeal did not address any other recognisable forms of appealable error. Consequently, the appellant failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that the primary judge's decision was in some way erroneous or unjust. As a result, the appeal was summarily dismissed.

The court did not issue any specific orders beyond the dismissal of the appeal, as the appellant had not demonstrated any valid grounds for overturning the primary judge's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant was unable to discharge the onus and so the appeal is summarily dismissed.Background The parties contested parenting proceedings under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). The trial was conducted over several days in February and March 2023. The appellant was not legally represented, though that was apparently his choice (at [31]). Section 102NA of the Act applied which meant that, without a lawyer, the appellant could not personally cross-examine the respondent. On 6 March 2023, the final day of trial, the primary judge delivered ex tempore reasons to explain the manner in which the cause of action would be determined, but ordered the parties to bring in orders reflecting the reasons. In the meantime, the primary judge made some interim orders which broadly reflected his Honour’s findings. Some delay elapsed before the parties brought in the orders as directed, but final orders were made by the primary judge on 19 July 2023. The orders generally provide for the respondent to have sole parental responsibility for the child, for the child to live with the respondent, and for the child to spend regular amounts of time with the appellant during school terms and school holidays. That result coincided with the child’s expressed view (at [10]–[12]) and the expert opinion evidence (at [21], [37]–[38] and [40]–[41]). By Notice of Appeal filed on 3 August 2023, the appellant appealed from all 39 orders made by the primary judge.The appeal The solitary ground of appeal brought by the appellant pleads this:1.The three day Trial lasted for six months during this process the [Respondent] canceled time ignoring the interim order which the trial Judge did not address. Instead went on to make a final order for the [Appellant] to spend time with the child knowing that time was not occurring. If the Trial Judge could not enforce the interim order how can he make a final order for time to occur which is still not happening.The [Respondent] was proven to have mental health issues and yet was given sole parenting responsibilities with the Trial Judge knowing that the other parent had no mental health issues and all rights were taken off him for no reason.(As per the original) As can be seen, the ground is no more than a grievance about several different things: the trial taking three days; the respondent’s alleged disobedience of orders; the primary judge’s alleged ignorance of supposed proof of the respondent’s “mental health issues”; and the allegedly unjustified removal of parental responsibility for the child from the appellant. The orders made by the primary judge embodied a discretionary judgment made under Pt VII of the Act. The grounds upon which a discretionary judgment may be challenged on appeal are well known (House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505). None of the multiple complaints captured by the solitary ground of appeal falls within the rubric of those principles. Nor does the ground of appeal assert other recognisable forms of appealable error, such as judicial bias, the deprivation of procedural fairness, or the inadequacy of reasons.

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.

NAA 203 of 2023 BRC 7266 of 2012
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR BELLMORE Appellant
AND:	MS FERRES Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

Appeal from:	Ferres & Bellmore [2023] FedCFamC1F 363
Appeal number:	NAA 203 of 2023
File number:	BRC 7266 of 2012
Judgment of:	AUSTIN J
Date of judgment:	11 August 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Practice and procedure – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where grounds upon which a discretionary judgment may be challenged on appeal are well known – Where the single ground of appeal does not fall within the rubric of those principles – Where the appeal is bereft of any legitimate contention of appealable error – Where the appeal is incompetent – Where the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success in its current form – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, s 102NA and s 69ZX Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 32 and s 46
Cases cited:	House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Number of paragraphs:	13
Date of hearing:	11 August 2023
Place:	Newcastle (via video link)
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Northside Family Law Centre
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Wallace Perkins Family Law

order made by:	AUSTIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 august 2023