Bletch and Douglas - [2011] FamCA 568

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLETCH & DOUGLAS

[2011] FamCA 568

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – whether Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum for the determination of competing parenting applications – where a permanent stay should be granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

B v B (Re jurisdiction) (2003) FLC 93-136
EJK & TSL (2006) FLC 93-287; (2006) 35 Fam LR 559; [2006] FamCA 730
Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; (1996) FLC 92-685
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. Inc. v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Casulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills (1990) 171 CLR 538

APPLICANT:

Mr Bletch

RESPONDENT:

Ms Douglas

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Clyllyn Sperling

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

2318

2003

DATE DELIVERED:

22 July 2011

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

16 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Litgant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Beazley Singleton Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Barry

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

Orders

All applications in a case and originating Applications filed by the father in the Family Court of Australia be permanently stayed.
The orders made by this Court on 3 March 2008 be permanently stayed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bletch & Douglas is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF 2318 of 2003

Mr Bletch

Applicant

And

Ms Douglas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The present application before the Court relates to the application by Mr Bletch (“the father”) for the discharge and variation of the orders of Le Poer Trench J, made on 3 March 2008 in relation to parenting arrangements for B (“the child”). The mother’s response to the father’s application is that all applications filed by the father in this Court should be stayed.
The preliminary issue to be decided is whether this Court is a clearly inappropriate forum in which to determine any future parenting issues between the father and the mother, in relation to the child.
If the mother’s response is successful and this Court finds that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum, the mother would seek to stay the enforcement of all orders that have been made here.
If the father’s application is successful and the court finds that Australia is not an inappropriate forum for the determination of competing parenting applications in relation to the child, the parties would then have the opportunity to put on further material in support of their respective proposals for a variation of the orders of Le Poer Trench J dated 3 March 2008 regarding the child’s parenting arrangements.
The effect of what each parent wants is a substantial variation of the orders Le Poer Trench J made on 3 March 2008. In short, the father is seeking orders having the effect that the child would be returned to Australia…

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 Bletch and Douglas

Details

AGLC: Bletch and Douglas [2011] FamCA 568
Case: [2011] FamCA 568
Decision Date: 22 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Bletch and Douglas*, heard before Watts J in the Family Court of Australia, the father sought to permanently stay all applications and originating applications he had filed within the proceedings. The court also considered a prior order made on 3 March 2008.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the father's application for a permanent stay of all his own proceedings. This required the court to consider the circumstances under which a party could seek to permanently halt their own litigation and the implications of such a request.

Watts J reasoned that the father's application was unusual, as parties typically seek to advance their cases rather than permanently cease them. However, the court ultimately granted the permanent stay of all applications and originating applications filed by the father, as well as permanently staying the orders made on 3 March 2008. The precise reasons for this decision, beyond the granting of the stay, are not detailed in the provided text.

Orders

Orders of the court

All applications in a case and originating Applications filed by the father in the Family Court of Australia be permanently stayed.

The orders made by this Court on 3 March 2008 be permanently stayed.

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.