HANWOOD & HALLIDAY - [2017] FCCA 996

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANWOOD & HALLIDAY

[2017] FCCA 996

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim hearing – father seeking order that mother relocate back to former living region – proposed order not made – best interests of child.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Vontek & Vontek [2017] FamCAFC 28

Applicant:

MR HANWOOD

Respondent:

MS HALLIDAY

File Number:

PAC 1659 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

31 January 2017

Date of Last Submission:

31 January 2017

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

23 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Family Law Group Pty Ltd

Solicitors for the Respondent:

MDV Family Lawyers

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

The father’s Application in a Case filed 23 September 2016 is dismissed. The Court declines to make the father’s proposed orders set out in his Case Outline filed 24 January 2017.
Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the children of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a family report, such report to be released by 18 April 2018.
The Family Report to deal with the following matters:
(a)Any views expressed by the child/ren and any factors relevant to the weight to be attached to those views, provided that the child/ren shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter.
(b)The nature of the child/ren’s relationships with each of the child/ren’s parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren);
(c)The likely effect of any changes in the child/ren’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child/ren of any separation from:
(i)either of the parents: or
(ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren), with whom the child/ren has/have been living.
(d)The capacity of each parent, or another person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren), to provide for the child/ren’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs.
(e)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child/ren and of either of the child/ren’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child/ren that the report writer thinks are relevant to opinions expressed in the report.
(f)The attitude to the child/ren, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child/ren’s parents.
The report writer has leave to read any document produced on subpoena to which the parties have been given such leave.
Proceedings are adjourned for mention following release of the Family Report on 18 May 2018 at 9.30am.
Pursuant to Section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 the child…

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.

Continue reading HANWOOD & HALLIDAY

Details

AGLC: Hanwood and Halliday [2017] FCCA 996
Case: [2017] FCCA 996
Decision Date: 23 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned a dispute between Hanwood and Halliday, heard before Newbrun J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal question requiring the Court's determination.

The central legal issue before Newbrun J was the interpretation and application of a specific legal principle or rule, the details of which are not elaborated upon in the provided excerpt. The Court was tasked with resolving this legal question to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Newbrun J's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not detailed in the provided text. The judgment would have involved an analysis of relevant legislation, case law, and legal arguments presented by the parties to reach a conclusion on the identified legal issue. The final orders or outcome of the case are also not specified in the given information.

Orders