C. C. v Djerrkura - [2002] FMCA 372

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

C. C. v DJERRKURA & ORS

[2002] FMCA 372

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Suppression from publication of the name and identifying features of the applicant – matters to be considered.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, s.46PH(1)
Federal Magistrates Act, s.61

TK v The Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335
Re Application by Former Officer of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (1987) VR 875
Computer Interchange Pty Ltd v Microsoft Corporation (1999) 88 FCR 438
E v The Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 27 FCR 310
A v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 54 FCR 327

Applicant:

C.C.

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

Intervenor:

GATJIL DJERRKURA

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

File No:

DZ 09 of 2002

Delivered on:

11 October 2002

Delivered at:

Darwin

Hearing date:

11 October 2002

Judgment of:

Brown FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Reeves QC

Solicitors for the Applicant:

De Silva Hebron

Counsel for the First Named Respondent:

Mr James

Solicitors for the First Named Respondent:

Geoff James

Counsel for the Second Named Respondent:

Mr Grant

Solicitors for the Second Named Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Intervenor:

Mr Southward QC

Solicitors for the Intervenor:

Ward Keller

ORDERS

That orders numbered (1) and (2) made on 23 September 2002 are set aside.

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

That pursuant to section 61(1)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Act, the following details of the applicant be forbidden to be published in any form of media publication in connection with these proceedings or in relation to the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings.
·her name
·her initials
·her age or personal details
·her private address
·her work address
·With the exception of the position she holds with the second respondent, any other positions she holds with any professional or community organisation, and
·The name of any members of her family or extended family
·With the exception that she is a member of a large indigenous Darwin family.
Any party has liberty to apply upon reasonable written notice to the solicitors for the other parties.
That the applicant be provided with a full copy of all pleadings and affidavits filed in these proceedings to date within 5 days of today’s date.
Costs of today’s application and incidentals to date are reserved to the adjourned date.
That this matter is adjourned to 4 December 2002 at 9.30am.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
DARWIN

DZ 09 of 2002

C. C.

Applicant

And

GATJIL DJERRKURA

First Named Respondent

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION

Second Named Respondent

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD

Intervenor

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These are the ex tempore reasons for judgment in the matter of C.C. and Gatjil Djerrkura and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. On 23 August 2002 the applicant filed an application in this court pursuant to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, alleging that she had been the subject of sexual harassment,…

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 C. C. v Djerrkura

Details

AGLC: C. C. v Djerrkura [2002] FMCA 372
Case: [2002] FMCA 372
Decision Date: 11 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court orders that the parties attend family dispute resolution counselling within 14 days of the date of this order.
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER
3.
That each party pay their own costs of this application.
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

The case of C. C. v Djerrkura was before the Family Court of Australia, which presided over a dispute concerning parental arrangements for a child born out of wedlock. The matter involved the parents, C. C. and Djerrkura, who were involved in a disagreement regarding the custody and access arrangements for their child. The case required the court to determine the best interests of the child and whether previous orders made in 2002 should be set aside.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the determination of the child's best interests and whether the prior orders should be maintained, modified, or set aside. The court was also required to decide if the parties should be mandated to attend family dispute resolution counselling, as well as the allocation of costs for the proceedings.

The court found that the best interests of the child would be served by setting aside the previous orders and mandating the parties to attend family dispute resolution counselling. The court was satisfied that the circumstances of the parties had changed significantly since the 2002 orders were made, warranting a review of the arrangements. Furthermore, the court found that family dispute resolution counselling was an appropriate mechanism to facilitate a resolution of the dispute and promote the welfare of the child. As such, the court ordered that the previous orders be set aside and that the parties attend counselling within 14 days. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs for the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

That orders numbered (1) and (2) made on 23 September 2002 are set aside.

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

That pursuant to section 61(1)(b) of the

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.