Bryson and Vergonis - [2018] FamCA 574

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRYSON & VERGONIS

[2018] FamCA 574

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – Relocation – Where father seeks mother to relocate back to Queensland with child – Where father seeks to spend each alternate weekend with child progressing to an equal care arrangement – Where mother primarily seeks that father’s time with child is supervised at a contact centre indefinitely – Mother alternatively seeks time be supervised between child and father and progresses to unsupervised day contact on an interim basis – Where mother alleges the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the father is not found to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the mother’s parenting capacity would not so diminish if child spent time with father – Where it may be in the child’s best interests for the mother to relocate back to Queensland to spend significant and substantial time with the father – Where the court proposes to give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions as to the extent, if relocation is ordered, of the radius in which the mother might be required to relocate to from the father’s residence.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 140

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Mauldera & Orbel (2014) FLC 93-602
Wacando v The Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1
S v Australian Crime Commission (2005) 144 FCR 431
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan & Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
N & S & The Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Harridge & Harridge [2010] FamCA 445
Re Andrew (1996) FLC 92-692
Russell v Close (Unreported, 25 June 1993)
Bayer & Imhoff [2010] FamCA 532
Sedgley & Sedgley (1995) FLC 92-623
Sampson & Hartnett (No 10) 2007 FLC 93-350
Carlson & Fluviun [2012] FamCA 32
Adamson & Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232
T v N [2001] FMCAfam 222 Ryan FM

APPLICANT:

Mr Bryson

RESPONDENT:

Ms Vergonis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Huth

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

6208

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

30 July 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Cairns

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane and Cairns (via video-link)

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

13 and 14 October 2016, 13, 14, and 15 November 2017; last written submission filed 8 January 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Horsley

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DA Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER:

Ms Bertone

SOLICITORS FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

The matter be listed for further mention at 2:15pm on Monday 6 August 2018 in Townsville by Global Meet Telephone Conference.

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 Bryson & Vergonis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the

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 Bryson and Vergonis

Details

AGLC: Bryson and Vergonis [2018] FamCA 574
Case: [2018] FamCA 574
Decision Date: 30 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Bryson and Vergonis*, heard before Tree J, the court was presented with a dispute between the parties. The precise nature of the dispute and the relief sought are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate next steps in the proceedings. This involved considering the procedural requirements and the court's ability to manage its caseload effectively.

Tree J ordered that the matter be listed for a further mention. This mention is scheduled for 2:15pm on Monday, 6 August 2018, and will be conducted via Global Meet Telephone Conference in Townsville. The court noted that the final form of this order is contingent upon its formal entry into the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter be listed for further mention at 2:15pm on Monday 6 August 2018 in Townsville by Global Meet Telephone Conference.

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.