FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FORTNUM & FORTNUM (NO. 3) | [2008] FamCAFC 133 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – No material error of finding vitiating exercise of discretion established; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 applied. Allegations of bias and bullying by trial Judge not established. Complaints in relation to denial of natural justice not established. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Section 68F(2) |
Australian Coal & Shale Employee’s Federation & The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 (at 627)
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Devries and Another v Australian National Railways Commission and Another (1993) 177 CLR 472
Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) and Others [1999] 160 ALR 588
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] 52 NSWLR 705
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79
M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69
R v Maxwell (1998) 217 ALR 452
McCrossen and McCrossen (2006) FLC 93-283
Guinness and Guinness [2008] FamCAFC 10
| APPELLANT: | MR FORTNUM |
| RESPONDENT: | MRS FORTNUM |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | LAURIE ROBERTSON |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYF | 631 | of | 2002 |
| APPEAL NUMBERS: | EA EA | 66 18 | of of | 2006 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 4 September 2008 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | FAULKS DCJ, COLEMAN & CRONIN JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 6 June 2008 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 16 June 2006 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2006] FamCA 524 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Litigant in person |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Litigant in person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Moss |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | DGB Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Ward |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Robertson Solicitors |
Orders
That the parenting appeal be dismissed.
That within twenty-one (21) days the respondent wife file and serve submissions in support of any application for costs of the parenting appeal.
That within twenty-one (21) days thereafter the appellant husband file and serve submissions in response to the submissions on behalf of the respondent wife in relation to the costs of the parenting appeal.
That within fifty-six (56) days the husband file and serve submissions in support of his appeal against the order for costs made against him by the trial Judge.
That within twenty-eight (28) days thereafter the wife and the ICL file and serve submissions in answer to such submissions.
That within fourteen (14) days thereafter the husband file and serve submissions in reply to the submissions of the wife and the ICL.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Fortnum & Fortnum (No. 3) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
Appeal Numbers: EA 66 of 2006 and EA 18 of 2007
File Number: SYF…
Continue reading Fortnum & Fortnum (No. 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fortnum & Fortnum (No. 3) [2008] FamCAFC 133
- Case
- [2008] FamCAFC 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the wife's appeal against the primary judge's parenting orders was successful and, if so, what orders should be made regarding the costs associated with the appeals. The court also needed to determine the appropriate timelines for the parties to file and serve their respective submissions regarding the costs.
The court dismissed the wife's appeal against the primary judge's parenting orders, finding that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion. The court further outlined a detailed schedule for the parties to follow in relation to the costs of both the parenting appeal and the husband's appeal against the costs order. This included setting deadlines for the wife to file submissions in support of any application for costs of the parenting appeal, for the husband to respond to these submissions, and for the wife and Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) to answer the husband's submissions regarding the costs order. The court also specified a timeline for the husband to file a reply to the submissions of the wife and the ICL.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the parenting appeal be dismissed.
2.
That within twenty-one (21) days the respondent wife file and serve submissions in support of any application for costs of the parenting appeal.
3.
That within twenty-one (21) days thereafter the appellant husband file and serve submissions in response to the submissions on behalf of the respondent wife in relation to the costs of the parenting appeal.
4.
That within fifty-six (56) days the husband file and serve submissions in support of his appeal against the order for costs made against him by the trial Judge.
5.
That within twenty-eight (28) days thereafter the wife and the ICL file and serve submissions in answer to such submissions.
6.
That within fourteen (14) days thereafter the husband file and serve submissions in reply to the submissions of the wife and the ICL.
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.