FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GOTCH & GOTCH | [2009] FamCAFC 3 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – FROM DECISION OF FEDERAL MAGISTRATE – CHILDREN – Following trial in 2006 the Federal Magistrate made an order allowing the mother to relocate with the children to the USA and for the father to spend holiday time with the children in Australia – In 2008 the Mother applied to have the place of this holiday time changed to the USA both on an interim and a final basis– Father sought that the mother’s applications be dismissed – Mother stated that the children had expressed to her that they did not wish to travel to Australia but that they did want to see the father - Federal Magistrate dismissed the applications finding that no sufficient change in circumstance (Rice v Asplund) existed – Mother appealed this dismissal stating that the Federal Magistrate should have taken her case at its highest but instead conducted a fact finding exercise – The Federal Magistrate’s reasoning was inconsistent with taking the mother’s case at its highest or as established at face value – Treatment of the mother’s evidence of the children’s wishes involved an error in approach or denial of procedural fairness – Appeal allowed – Application for variation on a final basis and application for dismissal remitted – Mother’s application for interim variation dismissed FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – From decision of Federal Magistrate – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 granted to both parties for the appeal |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) |
| Miller & Harrington [2008] FamCAFC 150 Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms GOTCH |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr GOTCH |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SA | 77 | of | 2008 |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 5979 | of | 2007 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 14 January 2009 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Bryant CJ, Warnick and O'Ryan JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 8 December 2008 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 11 August 2008 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2008] FMCAfam 898 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Ms Nikou SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Berry Family Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Galloway |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | BM Law |
Orders
That the appeal be allowed.
That the orders of 11 August 2008 of the Federal Magistrates Court be set aside.
That the mother’s application for the interim order sought in paragraph 5 of her application filed 30 June 2008 be dismissed.
That, otherwise, the said application and the father’s response filed 6 August 2008 be remitted for rehearing to a Federal Magistrate other than Turner FM.
That the court grants to the appellant mother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant mother in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant mother in relation…
Continue reading Gotch & Gotch
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gotch & Gotch [2009] FamCAFC 3
- Case
- [2009] FamCAFC 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in law by not accepting the mother’s case at its highest, and whether there was a denial of procedural fairness in the way the mother's evidence was treated. The court found that the Federal Magistrate had indeed failed to accept the mother’s case at its highest and had erred in the approach to her evidence regarding the children’s wishes. The court concluded that this was a significant error, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The orders of the Federal Magistrate dated 11 August 2008 were set aside. The mother’s application for an interim order was dismissed, while the other applications were remitted for rehearing to a different Federal Magistrate. Costs certificates were granted to both parties for the appeal under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the appeal be allowed.
2.
That the orders of 11 August 2008 of the Federal Magistrates Court be set aside.
3.
That the mother’s application for the interim order sought in paragraph 5 of her application filed 30 June 2008 be dismissed.
4.
That, otherwise, the said application and the father’s response filed 6 August 2008 be remitted for rehearing to a Federal Magistrate other than Turner FM.
5.
That the court grants to the appellant mother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant mother in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant mother in relation to the appeal.
6.
That the court grants to the respondent father a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of section 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 being a certificate that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent father in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent father in relation to the appeal.
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.