Ferreday and Layh - [2020] FamCAFC 90

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FERREDAY & LAYH

[2020] FamCAFC 90

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REVIEW DECISION OF THE APPEAL REGISTRAR – Where the applicant seeks to review the decision of the Appeal Registrar to refuse to accept a Notice of Appeal for filing – Where the Appeal Registrar patiently provided the applicant with a number of opportunities to prepare a competent Notice of Appeal – Where the proposed Notice of Appeal did not identify alleged error or errors of the primary judge, was a stream of consciousness and was unintelligible – Where there is no basis to allow the Notice of Appeal to be filed – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Ferreday

RESPONDENT:

Ms Layh

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

4198

2019

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

26 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland J

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

LOWER COURT MNC:

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms McMorrine

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Southern Community Justice Centre

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 31 December 2019 be dismissed;
To the extent necessary the Application in an Appeal filed on 18 February 2020 be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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 Ferreday & Layh 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 1 of 2020
FILE NUMBER: ADC 4198 of 2019

Mr Ferreday

Applicant

And

Ms Layh

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before the court today is an Application in an Appeal filed by Mr Ferreday (“the father”) on 31 December 2019, seeking, it seems, to review a decision of the Appeal Registrar to refuse to accept a Notice of Appeal for filing. I describe it in that way because it is indicated in the document that that is the topic of the application, but when I go to the orders that are sought, they do not bear any relationship to an application for review. Indeed, what is in the orders sought, is unintelligible.
There is also before the court, a further Application in an Appeal filed by the father on 18 February 2020, in which he seeks leave to adduce further evidence, that being evidence comprised in an affidavit also filed on 18 February 2020.
By way of background,…

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 Ferreday and Layh

Details

AGLC: Ferreday and Layh [2020] FamCAFC 90
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 90
Decision Date: 26 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Ferreday and Layh, who were appealing a decision made in a lower court. The nature of the dispute was the outcome of a legal decision that had been made against them, and they sought to have it overturned or altered. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court in Australia. The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the interpretation of certain laws and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case. The court had to consider whether the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and whether there were any errors in the decision that warranted an appeal. After reviewing the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the lower court's decision was correct, and there were no errors that warranted an appeal. The court upheld the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. There was no order as to costs, meaning that neither party was required to pay the other's legal expenses. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 31 December 2019 be dismissed;

To the extent necessary the Application in an Appeal filed on 18 February 2020 be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.