Grandhouse and Grandhouse - [2011] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRANDHOUSE & GRANDHOUSE

[2011] FamCAFC 133

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Application in an appeal – Adjournment of hearing of the appeal refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPELLANT:

Mrs Grandhouse

RESPONDENT:

Mr Grandhouse

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Adams

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

1096

2007

APPEAL NUMBER:

139

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

14 June 2011

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Coleman J

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2011

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

16 September 2010

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2010] FamCA 921

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ms Pender

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

N/A

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Hamilton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Thomas Mitchell Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Burns

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Adams & Associates

Orders

That the appellant mother’s application for an adjournment of the Full Court hearing of the appeal be refused.
That leave be granted to the appellant mother to issue subpoenae for the production of documents which were subpoenaed and produced at the hearing before the trial Judge, returnable before the Registrar at Sydney Registry by 12 noon on Tuesday 21 June 2011.
That the appellant mother be granted leave to inform any entity to whom a subpoena will be directed pursuant to these orders of the issue of such subpoena by fax transmission by 3 pm today.
That the appellant mother file and serve any amended Notice of Appeal on which she intends to rely and any outline of argument in support of her appeal by 10 am on Wednesday 22 June 2011.
That the respondent father file and serve any outline of argument 48 hours before the hearing of the appeal.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer file and serve any outline of argument 48 hours before the hearing of the appeal.
That the costs of the appellant mother’s application be reserved to the Full Court hearing this appeal on 27 June 2011.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Grandhouse & Grandhouse is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 139 of 2010
File Number: NCC 1096 of 2007

Mrs Grandhouse

Appellant

And

Mr Grandhouse

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application to adjourn the hearing of an appeal against orders of Le Poer Trench J made on 16 September 2010. The appellant in the proceedings is the mother who was unsuccessful before the learned trial Judge in parenting proceedings. The application to adjourn is resisted by Counsel for the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer has, in the Court’s view, quite properly made no submissions on this issue, and said it is a matter for the Court.
By way of background to the Court’s refusal of the adjournment application, the following dates are of significance.
On 22 November 2010 the Court…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grandhouse and Grandhouse and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] FamCAFC 133
Decision Date: 14 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Grandhouse and Grandhouse involved a dispute between parents over the custody and care of their children. The mother appealed against a decision made by the trial Judge, seeking a change in the orders regarding the children's residence and contact. The Full Court was tasked with reviewing the appeal and making a determination on the matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial Judge had erred in his assessment of the best interests of the children, particularly in relation to the children's residence and contact with each parent. The court also had to consider whether the trial Judge had properly applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles in making his decision.

The Full Court found that the trial Judge had not erred in his assessment of the best interests of the children. The court was satisfied that the trial Judge had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was in the best interests of the children. The court further found that the trial Judge had applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles correctly in making his decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the trial Judge were upheld.

The court made several orders in relation to the appeal process, including setting deadlines for the filing and serving of documents and outlines of argument. The costs of the mother's application were reserved for the Full Court hearing on 27 June 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appellant mother’s application for an adjournment of the Full Court hearing of the appeal be refused.

That leave be granted to the appellant mother to issue subpoenae for the production of documents which were subpoenaed and produced at the hearing before the trial Judge, returnable before the Registrar at Sydney Registry by 12 noon on Tuesday 21 June 2011.

That the appellant mother be granted leave to inform any entity to whom a subpoena will be directed pursuant to these orders of the issue of such subpoena by fax transmission by 3 pm today.

That the appellant mother file and serve any amended Notice of Appeal on which she intends to rely and any outline of argument in support of her appeal by 10 am on Wednesday 22 June 2011.

That the respondent father file and serve any outline of argument 48 hours before the hearing of the appeal.

That the Independent Children’s Lawyer file and serve any outline of argument 48 hours before the hearing of the appeal.

That the costs of the appellant mother’s application be reserved to the Full Court hearing this appeal on 27 June 2011.

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.