Legal Research
Cases
KAMARA & KAMARA

KAMARA & KAMARA

Case [2017] FCCA 2675 3 November 2017

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAMARA & KAMARA

[2017] FCCA 2675

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim relocation – parental responsibility – live with – whether the father’s time with the children should be supervised – consequential parenting orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC & 65DAE

Cases cited:

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Morgan & Miles (2007) FamCA 1230
B & O & M [2008] FMCAfam 379
Redmond & Redmond [2014] FamCAFC 155
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Newlands & Newlands [2007] FamCA 168
M & K[2007] FMCAfam 26
Stott & Holgar & Anor [2017] FamCAFC 152
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
A v A (1998) FLC 92-800
R & R: Children’s Wishes (2000) FLC 93-000
Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100
AMS & AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160
Murphy & Murphy [2007] FamCA 795

Applicant:

MS KAMARA

Respondent:

MR KAMARA

File Number:

SYC 4599 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Kemp

Hearing date:

29 September 2017

Date of Last Submission:

29 September 2017

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

3 November 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Fowler

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Doolan Callaghan

Respondent:

Self-represented

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

THE COURT ORDERS, PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THAT:

All previous parenting orders be discharged.
The mother have sole parental responsibility for X born (omitted) 2007, currently 10 years of age (“X”) and Y born (omitted) 2011, currently 6 years of age (“Y”) (“the children”).
By consent the children live with the mother.
The mother be permitted to relocate with the children to (omitted) NSW.
The mother or her legal representative shall notify the father by email within 7 days of her and the children’s relocation to (omitted) NSW.
The children spend time with the father in Sydney and (omitted) as provided for by these orders.
On the children living in Sydney, the children spend time with the father under supervision by (omitted) or other such service (“Contact Service”) as agreed between the parties, for a period of 3 hours on the first Saturday of each calendar month, between 1.00pm and 4.00pm or at times agreed between the Contact Service and the parties, and to facilitate such time each party must;
(a)contact the Contact Service within 7 days of these orders to arrange an appointment for assessment for suitability;
(b)attend any assessment for the Contact Service;
(c)comply with any appointments for the Contact Service for supervised time;
(d)comply with all reasonable rules of the Contact Service; and
(e)comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of the Contact Service;
and the father must:
(f)pay the fees nominated by the Contact Service for the provision of its service; and
(g)book the visit with the Contact Service and confirm with the mother or her legal representative in writing by email not…

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 KAMARA & KAMARA

Details

AGLC: Kamara and Kamara [2017] FCCA 2675
Case: [2017] FCCA 2675
Decision Date: 3 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Kamara and Kamara. The dispute concerned an application for an order for the sale of property. The application was heard by Kemp J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an order for the sale of property pursuant to section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the specific circumstances of the case and whether such an order was just and equitable.

Kemp J considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the financial circumstances and the needs of the parties. The court applied the principles established in family law jurisprudence regarding property division and sale, focusing on achieving a just and equitable outcome. The court noted that an order for sale is a significant step and should only be made where other forms of property adjustment are not feasible or sufficient.

The court ultimately made orders for the sale of the property.

Orders