FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Inglis & Torres (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 557
File number(s): SYC 2881 of 2020 Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J Date of judgment: 12 August 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Undefended hearing – Where the applicant did not attend the final hearing – Where the applicant’s informal application for adjournment was denied – Where final orders are made by consent – Where the Court is satisfied that the evidence supports the orders sought – Where the respondent makes an oral application for a passport order – Where the respondent makes an oral application for an injunction – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer consents to the oral applications – Where leave is granted to make these oral applications – Where the respondent seeks indemnity costs – Where indemnity costs are granted – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks costs against both parties – Where the applicant is ordered to pay the entire costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 68B, 102NA, 117, 117(2A) Cases cited: Bhatt & Acharya (Costs) [2017] FamCAFC 71
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801
Cross & Beaumont (2008) 39 Fam LR 389; [2008] FamCAFC 68
Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340; [1992] FamCA 116
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) (2011) FLC 93-467; [2011] FamCAFC 141;
Parke & The Estate of the Late A Parke (2016) FLC 93-748; [2016] FamCAFC 248
Peake v Benedict (Costs) (2014) 53 Fam LR 476; [2014] FCCA 2723
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 28 Date of hearing: 12 August 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Litigant in person (did not participate) Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Murphy (direct brief) Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Reid Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ark Law Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 2881 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR INGLIS
Applicant
AND: MS TORRES
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2024
Amended pursuant to r 10.13(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 on 20 August 2024
THE COURT ORDERS
BY CONSENTTHAT:1.Pursuant to Part 10.2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), orders are made by consent as between the Respondent and Independent Children’s Lawyer, and on an undefended basis, in accordance with the documents marked “A” and “B” dated this day and attached hereto.
2.Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
3.All outstanding applications otherwise are dismissed, and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
THE…
Continue reading Inglis & Torres (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Inglis & Torres (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 557
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 557
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed several legal issues, including whether to grant the oral applications made by Ms Torres and the Independent Children's Lawyer. It also considered the appropriate costs orders to be made against Mr Inglis, given his absence and non-participation in the proceedings. The court noted the absence of Mr Inglis and the attempts made to contact him, as well as the consent of the Independent Children's Lawyer to the oral applications. The court determined that the evidence supported the making of the orders sought by Ms Torres and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court found that Mr Inglis's absence warranted the granting of indemnity costs and specific costs orders against him.
The court dismissed Mr Inglis's application for an adjournment and granted leave for the parties' legal representatives and the Independent Children's Lawyer to inspect subpoena material. It also granted the oral applications, resulting in orders for Mr Inglis to be restrained from contacting Ms Torres and the child and for Ms Torres to apply for an Australian passport for the child. The court ordered Mr Inglis to pay Ms Torres's costs on an indemnity basis and the Independent Children's Lawyer's costs in full. The court's decision was based on the absence of Mr Inglis, the consent of the Independent Children's Lawyer, and the evidence presented. The final orders reflect these determinations and the specific relief sought by the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
SYC 2881 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MR INGLIS
Applicant
AND:
MS TORRES
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2024
Amended pursuant to r 10.13(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 on 20 August 2024
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
1. Pursuant to Part 10.2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), orders are made by consent as between the Respondent and Independent Children’s Lawyer, and on an undefended basis, in accordance with the documents marked “A” and “B” dated this day and attached hereto.
2. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
3. All outstanding applications otherwise are dismissed, and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Leave to adjourn
4. The Applicant’s application for an adjournment is dismissed.
Leave to inspect
5. Leave is granted to the parties’ legal representatives and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect all subpoena material produced by New South Wales Police and the Department of Communities and Justice.
6. Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect all subpoena material produced by C Lawyers, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material produced may be subject to professional legal privilege.
7. If the Independent Children’s Lawyer forms the view that no privileged material was produced, leave is granted to the parties’ legal representatives to inspect all subpoena material produced by C Lawyers.
Oral applications
8. Leave is granted to the Respondent to make an oral application to permit the Respondent to apply for an Australian passport for the child X born 2019 (“the child”).
9. Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make an oral application that the father be restrained under s 68B of the Act for the personal protection of the Respondent and the child.
10. Leave is granted to the Respondent to make an oral application that the Applicant pay her costs on an indemnity basis in these proceedings.
11. Leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make an oral application that the parties each pay an even share of their costs in these proceedings.
Restraints
12. Pursuant to ss 68B and 114 of the Act, the Applicant is restrained from:
(a) entering or remaining in any place of residence, employment or education of the Respondent or the child; and
(b) from communicating with the Respondent or the child, other than as permitted in these orders.
Costs orders
13. Within 28 days of the date of these orders, the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis as assessed by the Court in the sum of $50,000.
14. Within 28 days of the date of these orders, the Applicant pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs, as they pertain to him, in the sum of $7,315.
15. Within 28 days of the date of these orders, the Applicant pay the Respondent’s share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs, in the sum of $7,315.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A. The matter was listed for final hearing commencing on 12 August 2024 at 10.00 am. When the matter was called, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant. My chambers attempted to contact the Applicant via telephone and email with no response. The matter was stood down until 11.30 am to give the Applicant an opportunity to appear. The Applicant was advised that the matter may proceed on an undefended basis in his absence. As at 11.33 am, there was no appearance by the Applicant.
B. Pursuant to r 10.13(1)(a) of the Rules, the Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order made in the absence of a party.
C. In the event that the Respondent seeks to make an application pursuant to Notation B hereof, the Respondent must make such application within 28 days of the making of these orders and ensure that he contemporaneously files an affidavit in support explaining his absence and lack of participation in these proceedings.
D. The Independent Children’s Lawyer did not object to the oral application described in Order 8, and the Respondent did not object to the oral application described in Order 9.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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.