Harris and Harris and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARRIS & HARRIS AND ANOR [2017] FamCAFC 221

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where there is an application to appoint a case guardian pursuant to r 6.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) - Where the applicant is the cross-second respondent in appeal proceedings that are part heard – Where the applicant has a clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment and currently requires assistance with decision-making – Where the application is granted with costs paid on an indemnity basis by the applicant.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 6.09, 6.10

APPLICANT:

Mr A Harris
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Harris
SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms Dewell
FILE NUMBER: SYC 5809 of 2011
APPEAL NUMBER: EA 194 of 2016
DATE DELIVERED: 13 September 2017
PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney
PLACE HEARD: Sydney
JUDGMENT OF: Johnston J
HEARING DATE: 13 September 2017
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 4 November 2016
LOWER COURT MNC: [2016] FamCA 938

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Milevski Family Lawyers
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Horton Rhodes Legal
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Karras Partners Lawyers

Orders

  1. That orders be made in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application in an Appeal filed on 4 September 2017 as set out hereunder:

    1.That pursuant to Rule 6.10(1) of the Family Law Rules, Ms R Harris be appointed as the Case Guardian of the Applicant/Cross-Second Respondent, Mr A Harris in these proceedings.

    2.That the costs of Ms R Harris as the appointed Case Guardian in these proceedings, including this application, be paid on an indemnity basis from the income or property of the Applicant/Cross-Second Respondent.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Harris & Harris & Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 194 of 2016
File Number: SYC 5809 of 2011

Mr A Harris

Applicant

And

Mr Harris
First Respondent

And

Ms Dewell

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application in an appeal for the appointment of a case guardian for one of the parties in these appeal proceedings, Mr A Harris.  Mr A Harris is the cross-second respondent in the appeal proceedings.  The appeal proceedings are currently part heard.  The order sought is that Ms R Harris be appointed as the case guardian of Mr A Harris.  There is also another order sought, being that the costs of the case guardian be paid on an indemnity basis…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harris and Harris and Anor 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
[2017] FamCAFC 221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harris and Harris and Anor was heard by a Family Court judge in Australia. The parties involved in the dispute were Mr A Harris and Ms R Harris. The central issue in this case was the appointment of a Case Guardian for Mr Harris and the associated costs. Ms Harris was seeking to be appointed as the Case Guardian for her former spouse, Mr Harris, and requested that the costs of her appointment be paid by him.

The court needed to determine whether Ms Harris was a suitable candidate for the role of Case Guardian and whether it was appropriate for the costs to be borne by Mr Harris. The Family Law Act and the Family Law Rules were the primary legal frameworks considered in this decision. The court examined the circumstances of the case, including the need for a Case Guardian and the financial situation of the parties.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court ruled in favor of Ms Harris. The judge found her to be a suitable candidate for the role of Case Guardian and determined that it was appropriate for the costs to be paid by Mr Harris on an indemnity basis. The court's decision was based on the need for a Case Guardian to assist Mr Harris in the proceedings and the financial capacity of Mr Harris to bear the costs. The court's orders, as noted, appointed Ms Harris as the Case Guardian and required Mr Harris to pay the associated costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That orders be made in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application in an Appeal filed on 4 September 2017 as set out hereunder:

1. That pursuant to Rule 6.10(1) of the Family Law Rules, Ms R Harris be appointed as the Case Guardian of the Applicant/Cross-Second Respondent, Mr A Harris in these proceedings.

2. That the costs of Ms R Harris as the appointed Case Guardian in these proceedings, including this application, be paid on an indemnity basis from the income or property of the Applicant/Cross-Second Respondent.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.