FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Haniyya & Terentiy [2023] FedCFamC1A 210
Appeal from: Terentiy & Haniyya [2023] FedCFamC2F 832 Appeal number: NAA 204 of 2023 File number: SYC 759 of 2020 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 1 December 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Whether the primary judge was in error by not making orders concerning alternate carers for the child in the event neither parent was available to care for the child – Where the order proposed did not create enforceable rights – Where the proposed order did not specify which arrangement was to take priority nor was there evidence to support the necessity of that order – Where the order did not create certainty – Where the primary judge was not in error to reject the proposed order – Incompetent ground – Where a ground of appeal is directed to an order that is not the subject of the Notice of Appeal –– Parental Responsibility – Whether the primary judge erred in making an order for equal shared parental responsibility – Where the primary judge did not misunderstand nor misapply the law – Where the primary judge was aware of the parties’ difficulties in communication – Where the orders made for parental responsibility were designed to assist the parties in the event of an impasse – Where the appellant herself had sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility in respect of some specified matters – Appeal dismissed – Directions as to costs. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAC Cases cited: Chappell & Chappell (2008) FLC 93-382; [2008] FamCAFC 143
Newlands & Newlands (2007) 37 Fam LR 10; [2007] FamCA 168
Number of paragraphs: 42 Date of hearing: 21 November 2023 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Appellant: Mr Brown, Browns the Family Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Wearne, Reid Family Lawyers ORDERS
NAA 204 of 2023
SYC 759 of 2020FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBETWEEN: MS HANIYYA
Appellant
AND: MR TERENTIY
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Appeal NAA 204 of 2023 is dismissed.
2.Any applicant for costs shall file evidence and written submissions within seven (7) days of these orders.
3.The respondent to any application for costs shall file any evidence and written submissions within seven (7) days of receipt of the applicant’s evidence and submissions.
4.Any submissions in reply shall be filed within a further three (3) days, at which time judgment in the costs matter will be reserved.
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…
Continue reading Haniyya & Terentiy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Haniyya & Terentiy [2023] FedCFamC1A 210
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC1A 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issues the court had to address were whether the primary judge erred in not making specific orders concerning alternate carers for the child and whether the primary judge erred in making an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The appellant argued that the primary judge should have made orders specifying which arrangement was to take priority as an alternate carer and that the primary judge erred in making an order for equal shared parental responsibility without considering the difficulties in communication between the parties. The respondent argued that the primary judge's orders were appropriate and should be upheld.
Christie J found that the primary judge was not in error in not making the proposed orders concerning alternate carers because the order did not create enforceable rights, did not specify which arrangement was to take priority, and there was no evidence to support the necessity of that order. The court also found that the primary judge did not misunderstand nor misapply the law in making the order for equal shared parental responsibility. The court determined that the order was designed to assist the parties in the event of an impasse and was in line with the appellant's own request for equal shared parental responsibility in respect of some specified matters. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
In addition to dismissing the appeal, Christie J provided directions for the parties to file evidence and written submissions regarding costs within seven days of the orders. The court also specified that any submissions in reply should be filed within a further three days, at which time judgment in the costs matter would be reserved. This order is subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors or to record a variation to the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
NAA 204 of 2023
SYC 759 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:
MS HANIYYA
Appellant
AND:
MR TERENTIY
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Appeal NAA 204 of 2023 is dismissed.
2. Any applicant for costs shall file evidence and written submissions within seven (7) days of these orders.
3. The respondent to any application for costs shall file any evidence and written submissions within seven (7) days of receipt of the applicant’s evidence and submissions.
4. Any submissions in reply shall be filed within a further three (3) days, at which time judgment in the costs matter will be reserved.
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.