FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CAO & CAO | [2018] FamCAFC 252 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Appeal against interim parenting orders providing for the children to remain living with the respondent mother – Where leave granted for the appellant father to rely on his Amended Notice of Appeal – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed a Submitting Notice – Where the grounds of appeal pressed by the appellant father challenged the weight which the primary judge gave to the risk of harm posed to the children in the mother’s household – Where the primary judge found the risk of harm to the children in the mother’s household was not unacceptably high and could be ameliorated by injunctions – Where the evidence is untested – Where no appealable error demonstrated – Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal – Where the appellant was unable to demonstrate he was not afforded procedural fairness – Appeal dismissed – Where appeal is wholly unsuccessful – Where the appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on a party/party basis. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4(1)), 60CC(2)(b), 94AAA(3), 117(2), 117(2A) Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 – Interim Family Law Proceedings, 1 January 2018 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Cao |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Cao |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Legal Aid NSW, Parramatta Family Law |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 3226 | of | 2016 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EAA | 86 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 19 December 2018 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Newcastle |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney via video link with Newcastle |
| JUDGMENT OF: |
Continue reading Cao & Cao
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cao & Cao [2018] FamCAFC 252
- Case
- [2018] FamCAFC 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the appeal centred on the correct interpretation of specific statutory provisions and whether the primary judge had erred in their application. The appellant contended that the primary judge had misapplied the relevant legal principles, leading to an unjust outcome. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the primary judge's interpretation and application of the law were correct and that the decision should be upheld.
The appellate court, after thorough consideration of the arguments presented and the applicable legal principles, found that the primary judge's interpretation and application of the law were sound. The court held that the primary judge had correctly understood and applied the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the primary judge was affirmed. The court further ordered that the appellant bear the costs of the appeal on a party/party basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Leave is granted to the appellant to rely upon the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 17 October 2018.
2.
The appeal is dismissed.
3.
The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party/party basis in the sum agreed or assessed.
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.