Chalk and Camden - [2008] FMCAfam 704

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHALK & CAMDEN

[2008] FMCAfam 704

FAMILY LAW – Contravention – no reasonable excuse.

Family Law Act1975

Applicant:

MR CHALK

Respondent:

MS CAMDEN

File number:

BRC3435 of 2008

Judgment of:

Jarrett FM

Hearing date:

20 May 2008

Date of last submission:

20 May 2008

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

20 May 2008

REPRESENTATION

Mr Chalk appears on his own behalf

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Barry & Nilsson

ORDERS

That this matter be adjourned to 9.30am on 23 May 2008 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Chalk & Camden is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC3435 of 2008

MR CHALK

Applicant

And

MS CAMDEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore

This is an application for contravention of certain parenting orders that were made by consent in the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia and, in particular, para.2 of those orders, namely:
That the parties have joint parental responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of their children, [X], who was born in 1997 and, [Y], born in 2000.
There was a hearing and judgment given by Lindsay FM in this matter about parenting issues in mid 2006. Those orders were set aside upon appeal and remitted for fresh determination. FM Lindsay determined that matter again in June, 2007, but the order set out above remained undisturbed. For present purposes the relevant application before his Honour was the mother's application to have the children's school changed. They were then, at that time, as I understand the evidence, attending the [S] School. The mother wished them to change schools, the father did not. The application was heard and determined and the mother's application was refused.
The father says the mother has breached the obligation to exercise parental responsibility for these children jointly because he says she has now, without his consent, changed the children's school from [S] to [P].
It is worth recording that the mother agrees that the parties must consult about schooling issues concerning the children; that she had made such an application in respect of schooling that was opposed by the father; and his opposition was successful. But she says, nonetheless, I can infer from certain circumstances that the father has in fact consented to the change of school for each of the children. It follows from her submission, it seems to me, that his consent to the change of schools is necessary for there to be a proper exercise of joint parental responsibility for these children.
I am satisfied of the following matters beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, that there was a hearing before Lindsay FM in the middle of 2006 where the mother's application for a change of schools for both children was heard and determined against her. Secondly, that she presented a form to the husband in November, 2006 which may…

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 Chalk and Camden

Details

AGLC: Chalk and Camden [2008] FMCAfam 704
Case: [2008] FMCAfam 704
Decision Date: 20 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Magistrates Court heard a case brought by Chalk against Camden, where the primary issue was the alleged infringement of Chalk's copyright by Camden. Chalk, a copyright holder, claimed that Camden had unlawfully used their copyrighted material in a commercial product without permission. The court was tasked with determining whether Camden's use of the material constituted copyright infringement and, if so, the appropriate remedy.

The legal issues central to the case involved the interpretation and application of the Copyright Act 1968. Chalk argued that Camden's use of their copyrighted material fell within the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, specifically the right to reproduce the material. Camden contended that their use of the material was permissible under the fair dealing exception for the purposes of research or study. The court needed to assess the scope of fair dealing and whether Camden's actions fell within this exception.

In its reasoning, the court examined the specific circumstances of Camden's use of the copyrighted material. The court found that Camden's actions went beyond what could be considered fair dealing, as the use was for commercial purposes rather than for research or study. The court determined that Camden's actions constituted copyright infringement and ordered Camden to cease the use of the material and to pay damages to Chalk. The matter was adjourned to allow for further proceedings regarding the quantum of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

That this matter be adjourned to 9.30am on 23 May 2008 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane.

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.