FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Briggs & Briggs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 258
File number(s): BRC 10366 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON Date of judgment: 6 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING –procedural matters – no case to answer application by the respondent – application opposed – two counts dismissed on no case to answer basis – balance of contravention applications to proceed – legal costs disproportionate to issues in dispute. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZN, 70NAF
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 189
Cases cited: A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported)
Attreed & Attreed [1980] FamCA 81
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717
Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112
Dobbs & Dobbs (2021) FLC 94-021
Fierro & Fierro (No 7) [2023] FedCFamC1A 24
Jackson & Fordham (1995) FLC 92-561
Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55
May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38
Meese & Meese (No 3) [2018] FamCA 807
Nieuwstraten & Nieuwstraten [1987] FamCA 11
Perkins & Perkins [1979] FamCA 4
Prentice v Cummins (No 5) [2002] FCA 1503
Protean (Holdings) Ltd. v American Home Assurance Co [1985] VicRp 18
Rasomen Pty. Ltd. v Shell Co of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 216
Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59
Stevenson & Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; and
Zanetti & Hill [1962] HCA 62Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 71 Date of hearing: 29 January 2024 Date of last submissions: The Applicant’s Written Submissions filed 5 February 2024 and the Respondent’s Written Submissions in Reply filed 7 February 2024 Place: Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Shoebridge Solicitor for the Applicant: Murdoch Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Linklater-Steele Solicitor for the Respondent: Hopgood Ganim Lawyers ORDERS
BRC 10366 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BRIGGS
Applicant
AND: MS BRIGGS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE DICKSON
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That Count 1 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 as it relates to an alleged contravention in 2022 is dismissed.
2.That Count 3 of the Applicant Father's Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 as it relates to an alleged contravention on 9 December 2022 is dismissed.
3.That the Respondent Mother’s oral application of no case to answer for Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 is 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…
Continue reading Briggs & Briggs (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Briggs & Briggs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 258
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the mother's application to determine if it was appropriate to dismiss the father's application on the basis that no case was made out. The court found that the mother's application was valid and proceeded to assess each count individually. Count 1 of the father's application, relating to an alleged contravention in 2022, and Count 3, concerning an alleged contravention on 9 December 2022, were dismissed as there was no evidence to support the claims. However, the remaining counts were not dismissed as they had sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. The court also dismissed the mother's application for a no case to answer determination for the majority of the counts, but allowed the proceedings to continue for the remaining counts.
In summary, the court dismissed Count 1 and Count 3 of the father's application on the basis that no case was made out. The mother's application for a no case to answer determination was dismissed for most counts, but the balance of the contravention applications proceeded. The court's orders reflect these decisions, and the form of the order is subject to formal entry in the court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
BRC 10366 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR BRIGGS
Applicant
AND:
MS BRIGGS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE DICKSON
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS:
1. That Count 1 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 as it relates to an alleged contravention in 2022 is dismissed.
2. That Count 3 of the Applicant Father's Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 as it relates to an alleged contravention on 9 December 2022 is dismissed.
3. That the Respondent Mother’s oral application of no case to answer for Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 is 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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.