EDWARDS & SIMPSON

Case [2013] FCCA 14


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDWARDS & SIMPSON [2013] FCCA 14
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application to dismiss parenting application relying upon principles set out in Rice and Asplund.
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.60CC
Cases cited:
Simpson & Edwards [2008] FMCAfam 1333
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Marsden & Winch (2009) FamCAFC 152
SPS and PLS (2008) FLC 93-363
DL & W (2012) FLC 93-496
Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCA FC 31
Applicant: MS EDWARDS
Respondent: MR SIMPSON
File Number: DGC 3186 of 2008
Judgment of: Judge O'Sullivan
Hearing date: 28 March 2013
Date of Last Submission: 28 March 2013
Delivered at: Dandenong
Delivered on: 18 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kent Hughes
Solicitors for the Applicant: Robert Halliday & Associate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Trim
Solicitors for the Respondent: Robin Harrison & Associates

ORDERS

  1. The application filed 23 November 2012 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 3186 of 2008

MS EDWARDS

Applicant

And

MR SIMPSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Ms Edwards (“the mother”) and Mr Simpson (“the father”) are the parents of X, born (omitted) 2001 (“the child”).

  2. The mother is 40 years of age. The father is 45 years of age. The parties commenced a relationship in 1998 and separated in 2003.

  3. On 17 December 2008 after a 3 day trial, final parenting orders were made by Bender FM (“the Orders”) which provided that:

    “THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

    1.All previous parenting orders be discharged.

    2.The Father have sole parental responsibility for the child of the relationship X born (omitted) 2001 (“X”).

    3.X live with her Father.

    4.X spend time and communicate with her Mother as follows:

    (a)during school terms, each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 5.00 pm Sunday commencing 6 February 2009;

    (b)from 9.00 am on 2 January 2009 to 5.00 pm on 4 January 2009;

    (c)from 9.00 am on 8 January 2009 to 5.00 pm on 10 January 2009;

    (d)from 9.00 am on 21 January 2009 to 5.00 pm on 23 January 2009;

    (e)for half the school term holidays commencing Term 1 2009 as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement, from 12.00 noon the first Saturday to 12.00 noon the second Saturday of the term holiday;

    (f)for two separate weeks in the long summer vacation commencing in the 2009/2010 summer vacation as agreed between the parties and failing agreement the week commencing 2 January and the week commencing 19 January;

    (g)on the Mother’s Day weekend from after school Friday to 5.00 pm Sunday;

    (h)from 5.00 pm Christmas Day to 5.00 pm Boxing Day in 2008 and each alternate year thereafter and from 5.00pm Christmas Eve to 5.00 pm Christmas Day in 2009 and each alternate year thereafter;

    (i)from after school until 6.30…

Continue reading EDWARDS & SIMPSON

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
EDWARDS & SIMPSON [2013] FCCA 14
Case
[2013] FCCA 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Edwards & Simpson*, heard by Judge O'Sullivan, the court considered an application filed on 23 November 2012. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, Edwards and Simpson, is not detailed in the provided text, nor is the context of the application.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the application filed by the applicant on 23 November 2012. The court was required to assess the merits of this application and decide whether it should be granted or dismissed.

Judge O'Sullivan dismissed the application filed on 23 November 2012. No further reasoning or legal principles applied in reaching this decision are available from the provided text.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application filed 23 November 2012 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.