Dunlop and Mackies and Ors - [2015] FCCA 1671

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUNLOP & MACKIES & ORS

[2015] FCCA 1671

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – request for access to court file in proceedings between the mother’s partner and another party – consideration of rule 2.08.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.121

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.2.08

Rice & Asplund (1978) Fam LR 570
Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280
Oates & Q and Anor [2010] FamCAFC 202
Echlin & Kagan [2011] FMCAfam 272
Thornton & Workcover Corporation of South Australia [2009] FamCA 449
Commissioner of Taxation & Darling and Anor [2014] FamCAFC 59
Paradoxos & Paradoxos and Anor [2010] FamCA 653
H & M [2013] FMCAfam 141
H & T [2012] FMCAfam 485

Applicant:

MR DUNLOP

First Respondent:

MS MACKIES

First Interested Party:

Second Interested Party:

MR YORK

MS DAVIS

File Number:

ADC 4188 of 2012

Judgment of:

Judge Harland

Hearing date:

11 June 2015

Date of Last Submission:

11 June 2015

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

18 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Tinning

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Adey Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Shorter

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Duncan Basheer Hannon Salisbury

Counsel for the First Interested Party:

Mr Harley

Solicitors for the First Interested Party:

Dixon Gallasch

Counsel for the Second Interested Party :

Ms Lindsay

Solicitors for the Second Interested Party:

Helen McCance

ORDERS

That within 7 days of the date of these orders Mr York shall cause his solicitor to provide to the solicitors for the parties in these proceedings the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia report dated 14 March 2014.
That the application in a case filed on 17 April 2015 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 4188 of 2012

MR DUNLOP

Applicant

And

MS MACKIES

Respondent

MR YORK

First Interested Party

MS DAVIS

Second Interested Party

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The respondent father in these proceedings filed an application in a case on 17 April 2015 seeking permission to copy and inspect the entire court file in proceedings ADC 4087 of 2007 which are parenting proceedings between Mr York and Ms Davis.
In order to put this application in context it is necessary to provide a brief background.
Mr Dunlop (the father) and Ms Mackies (the mother) are the parties in these proceedings. They entered into consent orders on 7 August 2013 and on 16 April 2014. The orders made on 7 August 2013 comprehensively deal with parenting arrangements for their three children, X born (omitted) 2005, Y born (omitted) 2007 and Z born (omitted) 2011. The issues which remained outstanding from those orders were the children’s schooling and the increase in Z’s time with his father. The parties entered into further consent orders on 16 April 2014 addressing the increase in Z’s time with his father. It…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dunlop and Mackies and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FCCA 1671
Decision Date: 18 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dunlop and Mackies and Ors*, heard by Judge Harland, the proceedings concerned an application filed on 17 April 2015. The specific nature of the dispute and the identities of all parties beyond Mr York are not detailed in the provided text, but the orders indicate a dispute involving Mr York and other parties represented by solicitors.

The central legal issue before the court was the disclosure of a specific report, namely the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia report dated 14 March 2014. The court was required to determine whether this report should be made available to the solicitors for the parties in the proceedings.

Judge Harland ordered that Mr York must, within seven days of the date of the orders, arrange for his solicitor to provide the specified report to the solicitors for the other parties. Concurrently, the application filed on 17 April 2015 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That within 7 days of the date of these orders Mr York shall cause his solicitor to provide to the solicitors for the parties in these proceedings the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia report dated 14 March 2014.

That the application in a case filed on 17 April 2015 be dismissed.

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.