FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Gin & Hing (No 9) [2024] FedCFamC1F 29
File number MLC 4528 of 2010 Judgment of WILSON J Date of judgment 2 February 2024 Catchwords FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Stay application – applicant failed to meet relevant criteria – application failed Legislation Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021
Cases cited Aldam & Cesari [2020] FamCA 849
Aldrige & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106
Blakeley & Jaine [2020] FamCA 781
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Easom & Burhan [2020] FamCA 13
Gin & Hing (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 63
Gin & Hing (No 6) [2023] FedCFamC1F 68
Gin & Hing (No 7) [2023] FedCFamC1F 116
In the Marriage of Clement (1981) FLC 013
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Jess & Jess (No 8) [2023] FedCFamC1F 395
Keskin & Keskin [2019] FamCA 830
Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513
Manesh & Manesh (No 2) [2020] FamCA 904
Mirren & Mirren (No 2) [2019] FamCA 742
Keevers & Keevers (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 163
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1988) 194 CLR 355
Velten & Velten (No 2) [2020] FamCA 542
Walton Stores (Interstate) v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 243 CLR 492
Zagar & Bacall [2020] FamCA 595
Division Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs 28 Date of last submission 30 January 2024 Date of hearing 30 January 2024 Place Melbourne Counsel for the applicant Mr D Mort Solicitors for the applicant GR Lawyers Counsel for the respondent Mr F Dixon SC Solicitors for the respondent Clancy & Triado Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer Mr D Whitchurch Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer Macgregor Solicitors ORDERS
MLC 4528 of 2010 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN MR GIN
Applicant
AND MS HING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER
2 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
1.The application by the father made in his further amended application in a proceeding dated 25 January 2024 for a stay of the order made 22 November 2023 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Gin & Hing has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of…
Continue reading Gin & Hing (No 9)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gin & Hing (No 9) [2024] FedCFamC1F 29
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 29
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether Mr Gin's application for a stay met the criteria under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court was required to consider whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the parenting order, particularly focusing on the impact of the stay on the welfare of the child. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances since the original order was made.
Judge Wilson dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that Mr Gin had not met the necessary criteria. The court found that there was insufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances that would justify altering the existing parenting arrangements. Furthermore, the court determined that granting the stay would not be in the best interests of the child. The reasoning provided by the court emphasised the importance of maintaining stable and consistent parenting arrangements for the welfare of the child. The dismissal of the application was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate the requisite grounds for a stay under the Family Law Act.
The court did not make any further orders apart from dismissing the application for a stay. The decision confirms the importance of the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in family law matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 4528 of 2010
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN
MR GIN
Applicant
AND
MS HING
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER
2 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
1. The application by the father made in his further amended application in a proceeding dated 25 January 2024 for a stay of the order made 22 November 2023 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.