Ericsson and Jarrold (No.9) - [2019] FCCA 3202

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ERICSSON & JARROLD (No.9)

[2019] FCCA 3202

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – consideration of the principle in Rice & Asplund – vexatious proceedings – best interests of the children.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4(a), 102QB, 102Q.

Cases cited:

Beesley & Ericsson (No.4) [2017] FCCA 2189

Ericsson & Ericsson [2014] FCCA 2953

Ericsson & Ericsson (No.2) [2015] FCCA 3146

Ericsson & Jarrold(No.5) [2018] FCCA 81

Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152

Pedrana & Roberts (No 2) [2015] FamCA 231

Rice & Asplund, In the Marriage of (1979) FLC 90-725

Applicant:

MR ERICSSON

Respondent:

MS JARROLD

File Number:

DGC 1317 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Mercuri

Hearing date:

30 April 2019

Date of Last Submission:

30 April 2019

Delivered at:

Dandenong

Delivered on:

8 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the applicant:

None

Counsel for the respondent:

Ms Jenkins

Solicitors for the respondent:

Rockman & Rockman

ORDERS

The father’s initiating application filed 12 October 2018 as amended on 7 March 2019 be dismissed.
The mother file and serve any submissions in support of her application for costs within 14 days.
The father file and serve any submissions in reply with respect to the mother’s application for costs with 14 days of receipt of the mother’s submissions made pursuant to order (2).
Pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

(A)Pursuant to section 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, information about courses, programs and services to help with adjusting to the consequences of those orders are set out in Attachment A.
(B)Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to publish or disseminate to the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ericsson & Jarrold (No.9) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 1317 OF 2013

MR ERICSSON

Applicant

And

MS JARROLD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 12 October 2018, the father filed an initiating application for parenting orders in respect of the children of the relationship, [X] born … 2003 (“[X]”), [Y] born … 2006 (“[Y]”) and [Z] born … 2008 (“[Z]”).
On 8 March 2019, the father filed an amended initiating application wherein he sought changes to final parenting orders made in respect of the children which were made by Judge Phipps on 18 December 2014 (“2014 final orders”).
By her amended response filed on 15 April 2019, the mother sought:
a)that…

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 Ericsson and Jarrold (No.9)

Details

AGLC: Ericsson and Jarrold (No.9) [2019] FCCA 3202
Case: [2019] FCCA 3202
Decision Date: 8 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ericsson and Jarrold (No.9)*, Judge Mercuri considered an application by the father, which had been amended. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved an initiating application by the father.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the father's initiating application should be dismissed. The court was also required to consider an application for costs made by the mother.

Judge Mercuri ordered the dismissal of the father's initiating application. The court also made directions regarding the mother's application for costs, requiring her to file and serve submissions in support within 14 days, followed by the father's opportunity to file submissions in reply. The orders also included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, and noted information about support services under section 62B of the same Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father’s initiating application filed 12 October 2018 as amended on 7 March 2019 be dismissed.

The mother file and serve any submissions in support of her application for costs within 14 days.

The father file and serve any submissions in reply with respect to the mother’s application for costs with 14 days of receipt of the mother’s submissions made pursuant to order (2).

Pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

(A) Pursuant to section 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, information about courses, programs and services to help with adjusting to the consequences of those orders are set out in Attachment A.

(B) Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year to publish or disseminate to the public any account of family law proceedings which identifies the parties, witnesses or other people concerned with the proceedings, unless specifically authorised by the court.

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.