Goldrick & Goldrick

Case [2007] FamCA 1260

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOLDRICK & GOLDRICK [2007] FamCA 1260

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – FROM DECISION OF FEDERAL MAGISTRATE – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time –  Relocation – Wife moved with the children – Father to spend regular time with the children – Mother alleged father had been violent towards her during relationship – Mother acknowledged the father had close relationship with children which she wanted to continue – Father argued he was unable to relocate to be closer to children due to business commitments – Father sought equal shared care arrangement – Father argued on appeal that Federal Magistrate failed to give proper attention to the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Argued incorrect application of principles – Benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – FROM DECISION OF FEDERAL MAGISTRATE – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Alteration of property interests – Contributions – Argued on appeal that Federal Magistrate gave inappropriate weight to contributions of each party – Father proposing alternative property orders dependent upon the ultimate terms of orders relating to arrangements for the children –Whether adjustment for s75(2) factors manifestly excessive
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC; 60CC(2)(a); 60CC(3); 60CC(4); 60CC(4)(a); 60CC(4A); 61DA(1); 75(2)
A v J (1995) FLC 92-619 at 82,232
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
APPELLANT: MR GOLDRICK
RESPONDENT: MRS GOLDRICK
APPEAL NUMBER: NA 40 of 2007
FILE NUMBER: BRM 1792 of 2006
DATE DELIVERED: 25 October 2007
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: FINN, WARNICK and MAY JJ
HEARING DATE: 6 August 2007
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Magistrates Court
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 27 February 2007
LOWER COURT MNC: [2007] FMCAfam 138

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr P Murphy SC and Mr Linklater-Steele
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Barry & Nilsson Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr R M Galloway
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pennisi & Associates

Orders

  1. That the appeal be dismissed.

  2. That the appellant father pay the respondent mother’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Goldrick & Goldrick.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

APPEAL NUMBER: NA40 of 2007

FILE NUMBER: BRM1792 of 2006

MR GOLDRICK

Appellant

And

MRS GOLDRICK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. When Mrs and Mrs Goldrick separated in September 2005, they remained living for a short time in their home in Brisbane, with their two children, [X], born in March 2000 and [Z], born in December 2001.  However, when [their] house was sold in December 2005, the wife took the two children to live at a home owned by her parents at [the Coast], an hour or…

Continue reading Goldrick & Goldrick

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goldrick & Goldrick [2007] FamCA 1260
Case
[2007] FamCA 1260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate concerning parenting arrangements and property settlement. The dispute arose after the wife relocated with the children, and the father sought to maintain regular time with them. The mother alleged the father had been violent towards her during the relationship but acknowledged his close relationship with the children, which she wished to preserve. The father contended that business commitments prevented him from relocating closer to the children and sought an equal shared care arrangement.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to give proper attention to the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), incorrectly applied relevant principles, and did not adequately consider the benefit to the children of maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents. In relation to property settlement, the appeal also raised whether the Federal Magistrate gave inappropriate weight to the contributions of each party and whether an adjustment for section 75(2) factors was manifestly excessive. The father's proposed property orders were contingent on the outcome of the parenting arrangements.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Federal Magistrate's decision. The court affirmed the importance of the children having a meaningful relationship with both parents and that the Federal Magistrate had properly considered the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and applied the correct legal principles in determining the parenting orders. Similarly, the court found no error in the Federal Magistrate's assessment of contributions and the application of section 75(2) factors in the property settlement.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant father was ordered to pay the respondent mother’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appeal be dismissed.

2.

That the appellant father pay the respondent mother’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed and in default of agreement, as assessed.

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.