FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HANNIGAN & SORRAW | [2010] FamCAFC 257 |
| FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – CHILDREN – International relocation |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Wood (1976) FLC 90-098 Harris and Harris (1977) FLC 90-276; (1977) 29 FLR Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Hannigan |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Sorraw |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2143 | of | 2007 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 119 | of | 2010 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 20 December 2010 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | May, Ainslie-Wallace and Watts JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 10 November 2010 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 13 September 2010 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2010] FamCA 807 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Grieve QC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | York Family Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Schonell SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Moira Ryan Lawyers |
Orders
Appeal dismissed
No order as to costs.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hannigan & Sorraw 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: EAA 119 of 2010
File Number: SYC 2143 of 2007
| Mr Hannigan |
Appellant
And
| Ms Sorraw |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal by the father, Mr Hannigan, against the orders of Cohen J made on 13 September 2010. His Honour’s orders permitted the mother, Ms Sorraw, to remove the child, [the child] “from the Commonwealth of Australia and relocate her to and reside with her in New York State, United States of America”.
The child, born in 2005 was living with her mother on the south coast of New South Wales prior to the orders being made.
The father was spending time with the child every week from 9:00am Monday until midday Thursday. At the hearing before the trial judge the father sought orders maintaining that shared care arrangement for the child. In the alternative the father proposed the mother be permitted to relocate to Sydney (which was the mother’s proposal in the alternative) on the basis that the above shared care arrangements for the child remained in place.
Factual Background
The father was born in Australia in 1977. The mother was born in the United States of America in 1977. The mother’s step-father to whom she is close, lives in a town not far from A in New York State. The maternal grandmother lives in California and Arizona. The mother has other family members in the A area and in New York City.
The parties met in New Zealand in 2003 and commenced a relationship.
In mid 2004 the parties travelled to Australia and then…
Continue reading Hannigan & Sorraw
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hannigan & Sorraw [2010] FamCAFC 257
- Case
- [2010] FamCAFC 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the proper interpretation of the contract, the enforceability of specific clauses, and the extent to which the contract terms were binding on the parties. The court had to consider whether the clauses in question were ambiguous and, if so, how they should be interpreted. Additionally, the court examined whether any of the clauses were unconscionable or otherwise void under Australian law. These issues were pivotal in determining the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract.
The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the contract's language and the surrounding circumstances of the agreement. It examined the principles of contract law, including the objective test for interpretation and the doctrine of unconscionability. The court concluded that the clauses in question were clear and unambiguous, and thus, enforceable. It found that the terms of the contract were binding on both parties as per the ordinary principles of contract law. The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Appeal dismissed
2.
No order as to costs.
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.