Corey and Jebbett (No. 2) - [2018] FamCA 1034

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COREY & JEBBETT (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCA 1034

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Independent Children’s Lawyer – application by mother for removal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where it was difficult to identify with any precision whether the mother contended for the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer on the basis of alleged bias against her and/or misbehaviour or incompetence – where none of the matters agitated by the mother demonstrated apprehended bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where there is no merit in the allegations of misbehaviour or incompetence advanced by the mother against the Independent Children’s Lawyer – application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 68L, 68LA, 91B

Knibbs & Knibbs [2009] FamCA 840
Lloyd and Lloyd and Child Representative (2000) FLC 93-045
Re K (1994) FLC 92-461; [1994] FamCA 21

APPLICANT:

Mr Corey

RESPONDENT:

Ms Jebbett

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Anthony Kingston, Norman & Kingston Solicitors

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

9223

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

3 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Kent J

HEARING DATE:

26 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Landmark Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Kingston, Norman & Kingston Solicitors

Orders

That the mother’s Application in a Case filed on 8 November 2018 be dismissed.
That the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and of the father of and incidental to that application be reserved to the trial.

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 Corey & Jebbett (No. 2) 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9223 of 2017

Mr Corey

Applicant

And

Ms Jebbett

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Parenting proceedings[1] concerning the child D (born in 2012 and aged six years) between his parents, Mr Corey (“the father”) and Ms Jebbett (“the mother”) and the lawyer appointed under s 68L of the Act to independently represent the child’s interests in the proceedings (“the ICL”) are listed for a three day trial to commence today, Monday 3 December 2018.
[1] Pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Last Monday 26 November 2018 I heard the mother’s Application in a Case filed on 8 November 2018 seeking orders, inter alia:
1. That ICL to be removed from this case.
2.The order 10 and 11 of September 2018 in regards to 91B of the family Act, requested by…

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 Corey and Jebbett (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Corey and Jebbett (No. 2) [2018] FamCA 1034
Case: [2018] FamCA 1034
Decision Date: 3 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Corey and Jebbett (No. 2)*, Kent J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed by the mother on 8 November 2018. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved the mother, the father, and an Independent Children's Lawyer.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the mother's application filed on 8 November 2018. The court was required to determine the merits of this application in the context of proceedings involving the parents and their child, as represented by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

Kent J dismissed the mother's application. The court also ordered that the costs associated with the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father, in relation to that specific application, be reserved to the trial. This means the final determination of who bears these costs will be made at a later stage of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the mother’s Application in a Case filed on 8 November 2018 be dismissed.

That the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and of the father of and incidental to that application be reserved to the trial.

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.