FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Channing & Channing (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 413
File number(s): PAC 5460 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC Date of judgment: 21 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay pending appeal. Cases cited: Acheson & Begbie (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 21
Channing & Channing [2024] FedCFamC2F 293
Macris & Galanis [2015] FCCA 2623
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls & Ors [2011] HCA 48
QYFM & Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 31 Date of hearing: 21 March 2024 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gardiner Solicitor for the Applicant: AJL Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Batey Solicitor for the Respondent: Hikma Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Dr McConaghy Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW Bankstown Family Law ORDERS
PAC 5460 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR CHANNING
Applicant
AND: MS CHANNING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding filed 13 March 2024 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE OBRADOVIC:
This matter is part heard from 25 October 2023 and is listed today for the continuation of the final hearing.
The parenting proceedings came before the Court for final hearing on 23 to 25 October 2023. The father is yet to complete his evidence and his case. The expert is yet to be cross-examined. On 20 February 2024, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding asking me to recuse myself from hearing this matter further.
On 1 March 2024, the Court heard the application for recusal. The application was dismissed on 7 March 2024, with written reasons being provided on the day[1].
[1] With a correction to the Reasons for Judgment being made on 8 March 2024; see Channing & Channing [2024] FedCFamC2F 293.
On 13 March 2024, the father filed the present application, which the Court heard this morning, being an application for a stay of the continuation of the parenting…
Continue reading Channing & Channing (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Channing & Channing (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 413
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 413
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the application for a stay of proceedings should be granted, considering the criteria set out in section 112A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess if the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and if the balance of convenience favoured the stay. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there were any other factors that should influence the decision on the stay.
Judge Obradovic dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a stay, as the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay. The court determined that the best interests of the child, as the primary consideration, would be best served by allowing the proceedings to continue without a stay. The decision was influenced by the need to protect the child's welfare and to avoid any unnecessary delay in the resolution of the family law matters.
The court's order was that the application for a stay of proceedings, filed on 13 March 2024, was dismissed. The form of the order is subject to review for any minor typographical or grammatical errors, or to record a variation to the order as permitted by the relevant rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
PAC 5460 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR CHANNING
Applicant
AND:
MS CHANNING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Application in a Proceeding filed 13 March 2024 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.