Burrows and Seddon & Anor - [2020] FamCAFC 190

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BURROWS & SEDDON AND ANOR

[2020] FamCAFC 190

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother was a witness to a violent crime and is a participant in a witness protection program – Where the primary judge did not rely on facts which were not in evidence – Where opinions of the single expert were based upon identified, proven and established facts – Where the primary judge did not impermissibly rely upon the opinion of the single expert – Where the primary judge weighed relevant statutory considerations and made an order taking into account the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 102PD, 102PE, 102PF
Witness Protection Legislation (State Z)

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Hall and Hall (1979) FLC 90-713; [1979] FamCA 73
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Holding Co Pty Ltd and Anor (1983) 3 NSWLR 378
Muldoon & Carlyle (2012) FLC 93-513; [2012] FamCAFC 135
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550; [2016] HCA 22
T v F; Commissionerof the Australian Federal Police and The Children’s Representative (1999) FLC 92-855; [1999] FamCA 738
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dickson (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

APPELLANT:

Ms Burrows

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Seddon

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Commissioner of State Z Police

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

CC Lawyers

DATE DELIVERED:

6 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge, Watts & Tree JJ

HEARING DATE:

11 December 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

24 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr FF

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

BB Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms DD

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

AA Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr EE

SOLICITOR FOR INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

CC Lawyers

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.
Pursuant to s 102PE Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), disclosure is prohibited of information tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning any party to or witness in these proceedings, including but not limited to information in any orders or reasons given by the Court; in affidavits; exhibits; or obtained by discovery or the issue of subpoenas, pending further order or until (redacted), provided that this order does not apply to information contained in the published anonymised and redacted version of the reasons for judgment.

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 Burrows & Seddon and Anor 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…

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 Burrows and Seddon & Anor

Details

AGLC: Burrows and Seddon & Anor [2020] FamCAFC 190
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 190
Decision Date: 6 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Burrows and Seddon, the parties were involved in a legal dispute that was heard in a relevant Australian court. The specifics of the dispute are not detailed in the summary, but it involved legal matters pertinent to family law, as indicated by the citation of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The central issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of family law provisions, particularly concerning the confidentiality and disclosure of information. The court needed to determine whether certain information, including that obtained through discovery and subpoenas, should be protected from disclosure to preserve the anonymity of the parties and witnesses involved in the proceedings.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), specifically section 102PE, which empowers the court to prohibit the disclosure of information that might reveal the identity of parties or witnesses. The court found that the interests of justice and the protection of the privacy of the parties warranted the prohibition of disclosure of sensitive information. The court's decision was also influenced by the need to balance the public's right to know with the protection of individual privacy in family law matters. The court was satisfied that the anonymity of the parties and witnesses would be adequately protected by the terms of the order, and thus upheld the application for confidentiality.

The outcome of the appeal was a dismissal, with no order as to costs. The court also issued a specific order prohibiting the disclosure of any information that might reveal the identity of the parties or witnesses, subject to exceptions for information in the anonymised and redacted version of the reasons for judgment. This order aims to safeguard the privacy of those involved while allowing for necessary legal processes to proceed. The form of the order is subject to formal entry in the court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.

Pursuant to s 102PE Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), disclosure is prohibited of information tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning any party to or witness in these proceedings, including but not limited to information in any orders or reasons given by the Court; in affidavits; exhibits; or obtained by discovery or the issue of subpoenas, pending further order or until (redacted), provided that this order does not apply to information contained in the published anonymised and redacted version of the reasons for judgment.

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.