Bradford and Donnellan - [2018] FamCAFC 191

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRADFORD & DONNELLAN

[2018] FamCAFC 191

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of transcript – Whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify the Court providing the transcript – Applicant’s financial circumstances – Application dismissed.

Finch & Shibo (No 2) [2016] FamCAFC 108
Sampson & Hartnett (2013) FLC 93-542; [2010] FamCAFC 220

APPLICANT:

Mr Bradford

RESPONDENT:

Ms Donnellan

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

4829

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

24 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

24 September 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

9 July 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FCCA 1822

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Maitland solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 14 September 2018 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 Bradford & Donnellan 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: EA 96 of 2018
File Number: PAC 4829 of 2015

Mr Bradford

Applicant

And

Ms Donnellan

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an Application in an Appeal filed on 14 September 2018, Mr Bradford (“the applicant”) seeks a number of orders in relation to the appeal against parenting and property orders made by Judge Harman on 9 July 2018 in proceedings against Ms Donnellan (“the respondent”).
Orders 1 to 11 as sought in the application are final parenting or property orders, presumably sought in substitution for those made by the primary judge. They are not orders that can properly be made in an Application in an Appeal. Therefore, there are only two orders that remain for consideration.
Order 12 seeks an order that the Court provide a transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge.
Order 13 seeks the following order:
13.I am seeking for Court Order in regards to providence of the second court hearing and organise an assistance in the court because of my mental disability and financial hardship. I can not represent myself during the court proceedings and I can not afford a private lawyer.
(As per the original)
The Court is not in a position to make Order 13. It has neither the facilities nor the funding to assist people to run their cases.
As…

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 Bradford and Donnellan

Details

AGLC: Bradford and Donnellan [2018] FamCAFC 191
Case: [2018] FamCAFC 191
Decision Date: 24 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Bradford and Donnellan, filed an appeal against a decision made by the Federal Court, which had ruled on a matter involving the respondents' eligibility for certain benefits under a superannuation scheme. The appeal was lodged on 14 September 2018. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had correctly interpreted the applicable superannuation laws and whether the respondents had been adequately informed of their rights and obligations under the scheme.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the respondents regarding the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the adequacy of the information provided to them. After thorough examination, the court determined that the Federal Court's interpretation of the law was correct and that the respondents had indeed been given sufficient notice of their entitlements and obligations. The appeal was thus dismissed on the basis that there were no grounds for overturning the original decision. The form of the order is pending its entry in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 14 September 2018 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.