0FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| JELBART & GANZER | [2018] FCCA 1771 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim proceedings – procedural issues of lack of available hearing time and matter determined “on the papers” – multiple opportunities given to Mother to provide written submissions to address her “issues” with the recommendations of a Family Consultant who prepared a detailed report (which included putting the child under “stress tests”) and who recommended a regime that provided for the gradual increase in the child’s time with the Father – the only “issue” between the parties relates to the increase in the child’s time with the Father – strained co-parenting relationship between the parties as well as during the relationship – primary independent evidence before the Court is from the Expert family consultant whose Report was prepared in July 2017 – barely any movement in the progress of the child’s time with the Father – usual problems of a Court placed in invidious position of “she said – he said” and little independent evidence – Family Consultant took relevant account of allegations of domestic violence – issues of “weight” of evidence in interim proceedings and procedural fairness in providing for matter to be dealt with “on the papers” in the absence and inability to provide early hearing time. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60CA, 60CC(3),65DAA Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3(2)(b), 15, 42, 56 |
| Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Expense Reduction Analyst Group Pty Limited v Armstrong Strategic Jopson & Lilwall [2016] FamCAFC 262 Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 CLR 475 Redmond & Redmond [2014] FamCAFC 155 Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517 Vanzin & Vanzin [2014] FamCAFC 245 |
| Applicant: | MR JELBART |
| Respondent: | MS GANZER |
| File Number: | CAC 144 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Neville |
| Hearing date: | By Written Submissions |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 April 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Canberra |
| Delivered on: | 1 June 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Yeend & Associates | |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson | |
ORDERS
Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, being by close of business on 8 June 2018, the parties…
Continue reading Jelbart and Ganzer
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jelbart and Ganzer [2018] FCCA 1771
- Case
- [2018] FCCA 1771
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was to determine the appropriate interim orders for the children, taking into account the recommendations of a Family Consultant and the passage of time since the report was released. The Court needed to decide whether the parties could reach an agreement on these orders, or if it would need to impose its own orders based on the existing report and the Father's proposed terms.
Judge Neville's reasoning focused on facilitating an agreement between the parties that reflected the Family Consultant's recommendations, adjusted for the eight months that had elapsed since the report's release. The Court indicated that if the parties could not agree, it would make orders in Chambers that substantially mirrored the Family Report's recommendations, with necessary temporal adjustments. The Court's approach underscored the importance of child welfare and the court's role in ensuring timely and appropriate arrangements for children in family law proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, being by close of business on 8 June 2018, the parties are to provide the Court with an agreed Minute of Interim Consent Orders which (a) implement the recommendations of the Family Consultant, adjusted for the months that have lapsed since its release, and (b) provide for the procedural course this matter should take.
2.
Absent agreement between the parties in relation to the Minute referred to at Order 1 of these Orders, the Orders Sought by the Father (which accord with the recommendations of the Family Report) will be made in Chambers, with adjustments for the 8 month time lapse between the date the Report was released and the date of the Orders.
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.