GALANIS & MACRIS (No.3) - [2015] FCCA 2744

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GALANIS & MACRIS (No.3)

[2015] FCCA 2744

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Stay – application for stay of earlier stay orders – principles considered – parenting proceedings – previous stay of parenting Orders discharged.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CA

Cases cited:
Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106
Galanis & Macris [2015] FCCA 2567
Galanis & Macris (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2729
Macris & Galanis [2015] FCCA 2623

Applicant:

MS GALANIS

Respondent:

MR MACRIS

File Number:

WOC 576 of 2010

Judgment of:

Judge Scarlett

Hearing date:

17 August 2015

Date of Last Submission:

17 August 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

9 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Gould

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Hansons Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Millar

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Rita Thakur & Associates

ORDERS

Order 1 made on 22 July staying the operation of Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 made on 12 June 2015 is discharged.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Galanis & Macris (No.3) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

WOC 576 of 2010

MS GALANIS

Applicant

And

MR MACRIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application in a Case

This is an Application for a stay of Orders made on 22^nd July 2015 staying parenting Orders made on 12^th June 2015[1] and property Orders made on 30^th June 2015[2] pending an Appeal by the Respondent.
[1] Galanis & Macris [2015] FCCA 2567
[2] Galanis & Macris (No. 2) [2015] FCCA 2729
On 22^nd July 2015 I made the following Orders:
(1)Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 made on 12 June 2015 are stayed pending the determination of the Appeal lodged by the father on 9 July 2015 in proceedings Number EA 108/2015; and
(2)Order (1) made on 30 June 2015 is stayed pending the determination of the said Appeal in proceedings EA 108/2015 on condition that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $50,000.00 by way of interim property settlement within 42 days of the date of these Orders.[3]
[3] Macris & Galanis [2015] FCCA 2623
On 23^rd July 2015, the day after the above Orders were made, the Applicant lodged an Appeal seeking the following orders:
1. Appeal be allowed.
2. That the Stay Orders made 22 July 2015, in relation to the parenting proceedings, be set aside.
3. That Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Orders made 12 June 2015 be reinstated.
4. That in the alternative that the proceedings be remitted for re-hearing to the Federal Circuit Court by a Judge other than Judge Scarlett.
5. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the appeal.

Orders Sought

The orders sought in this Application are:
1. That this application be urgently listed.
2. That leave be granted to serve this Application on short notice.
3. That pending the…

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 GALANIS & MACRIS (No.3)

Details

AGLC: Galanis and Macris (No.3) [2015] FCCA 2744
Case: [2015] FCCA 2744
Decision Date: 9 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Galanis & Macris (No.3)*, Judge Scarlett of the Supreme Court of Victoria was required to consider an application to discharge an order that had stayed the operation of previous orders made on 12 June 2015. The specific orders whose operation was stayed, and which were now the subject of the discharge application, were Orders 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the stay previously imposed on the operation of certain orders should be lifted. This required the Court to assess the continued necessity or appropriateness of the stay in light of the circumstances at the time of the hearing.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the purpose of the stay had been fulfilled or was no longer operative, leading to the conclusion that the stay should be discharged. The Court applied the principle that stays are typically temporary measures and should be lifted once their purpose is served or if they are no longer justified. Consequently, the Court ordered that the stay of operation of Orders 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 made on 12 June 2015 was discharged.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order 1 made on 22 July staying the operation of Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 made on 12 June 2015 is discharged.

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.