COLEMAN & HAMILTON - [2016] FamCAFC 164

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLEMAN & HAMILTON

[2016] FamCAFC 164

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the mother appeals against parenting orders that the children live with the father and the father have sole parental responsibility – Where the grounds of appeal challenged the weight the trial judge gave to evidence – Where the totality of the evidence provided an ample basis for the challenged findings – Where the trial judge made adverse credit findings against the mother – Where it was asserted these findings should not have been made but the findings themselves were not challenged – Where the resolution of issues before her Honour required a determination of the credibility of the mother – No error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568

APPELLANT:

Ms Coleman

RESPONDENT:

Mr Hamilton

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Krstina Wooi

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

496

2013

APPEAL NUMBERS:

EA
EA

83
95

of
of

2016
2016

DATE DELIVERED:

19 August 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Cronin JJ

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATES:

22 April 2016

22 June 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2016] FCCA 901
[2016] FCCA 1678

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Levick

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Attwaters Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Boyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Lyons Barnett Kennedy

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Rugendyke

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Krstina Wooi

Orders

The appeal against the orders made on 22 April 2016 is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

IT IS NOTED:

A.That the appeal against the orders made on 22 June 2016 was withdrawn.

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 Coleman & Hamilton 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 the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Numbers: EA 83 of 2016; EA 95 of 2016
File Number: NCC 496 of 2013

Ms Coleman

Appellant

and

Mr Hamilton

Respondent

and

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ainslie-Wallace J

Ms Coleman, to whom I will refer for convenience as the mother, appeals against parenting orders made by Judge Terry on 22 April 2016 concerning the children X who was born in 2011 and Y who was…

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 COLEMAN & HAMILTON

Details

AGLC: COLEMAN & HAMILTON [2016] FamCAFC 164
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 164
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coleman and Hamilton were the parties involved in this case, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central dispute in this case was about the interpretation and application of a contract between the parties. Specifically, the matter revolved around the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract that was entered into for the supply of goods and services.

The key legal issues that the court had to decide included the interpretation of certain clauses in the contract, the enforceability of those clauses, and the extent to which one party could rely on those clauses against the other. The court was also required to determine whether there were any breaches of contract by either party and, if so, what remedies were available.

In examining the contract, the court considered the ordinary principles of contract interpretation, focusing on the language used and the context in which it was written. The court found that the clauses in question were clear and unambiguous, and thus should be given their plain meaning. The court held that the obligations under the contract were binding and enforceable, and that neither party had breached the contract. The court dismissed the appeal against the orders made in April 2016 and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against the orders made on 22 April 2016 is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.

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.