Keehan v Keehan

Case [2019] FamCAFC 250

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEEHAN & KEEHAN [2019] FamCAFC 250
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – Where the mother appeals from a dismissal of her Contravention Application – Where the trial judge found it to be an abuse of process – Where the relevant child was three months shy of her 18th birthday at the hearing before the trial judge – Where the child had ceased spending time with the mother two years earlier – Where the relevant child turned 18 prior to the hearing of the appeal – Where the mother wished to pursue her appeal nonetheless – Consideration of legislative intent of Division 13A – McClintock & Levier (2009) FLC 93-401 considered – Where Division 13A is directed only to enforcing compliance with operative parenting orders by those individuals bound by the subject orders – Where the legislative purposes of Division 13A do not include punishment for past non-compliance with orders nor specific or general deterrence for past conduct – Where this appeal has no utility – Appeal dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 65H(2), 69ZN, 70NAA(1), 94AAA(3), 112AP, Div 13A
Family Law Amendment Act 2000 (Cth)
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth)
Caballes & Tallant (2014) FLC 93-596; [2014] FamCAFC 112
Marsden & Winch (2013) FLC 93-560; [2013] FamCAFC 177
McClintock & Levier (2009) FLC 93-401; [2009] FamCAFC 62
Re Bernadette (2011) FLC 93-463; [2011] FamCAFC 50
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; [1995] HCA 66
APPELLANT: Ms Keehan
RESPONDENT: Mr Keehan
FILE NUMBER: BRC 3094 of 2013
APPEAL NUMBER: NOA 49 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 17 December 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Kent J
HEARING DATE: 3 December 2019
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 8 May 2019
LOWER COURT MNC: [2019] FCCA 1907

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person
THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed 18 November 2019 be dismissed.

  2. The Amended Notice of Appeal filed 18 October 2019 be dismissed.

  3. There be no order as to costs.

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 Keehan & Keehan 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NOA 49 of 2019
File Number: BRC 3094 of 2013

Ms Keehan

Appellant

And

Mr Keehan

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 8 May 2019, a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“FCC”) made an order dismissing the…

Continue reading Keehan v Keehan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Keehan v Keehan [2019] FamCAFC 250
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keehan v Keehan is a case in which the appellant sought to appeal against decisions regarding spousal maintenance and property settlement made in the Family Court of Australia. The appellant contended that the primary judge had erred in making certain findings and orders regarding the financial arrangements between the parties following their divorce. The respondent opposed the appeal, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed due to procedural irregularities and on the merits.

The primary legal issues in the appeal concerned whether the appeal was properly filed and whether the appeal had any prospect of success. The court was required to determine whether the appeal was within the time limits set out in the Family Law Act 1975, whether the notice of appeal was properly filed, and whether the appeal had any reasonable prospect of success. The court was also required to consider whether the appellant had complied with the procedural requirements of the Family Law Rules 2004.

The court found that the appeal was not properly filed, as the appellant had failed to file a valid notice of appeal within the required time frame. The court also found that the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Family Law Rules 2004, as the amended notice of appeal was not filed within the required time frame. The court further found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, as the primary judge's findings and orders were supported by the evidence before the court. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed 18 November 2019 be dismissed.

2.

The Amended Notice of Appeal filed 18 October 2019 be dismissed.

3.

There be no order as to costs.

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.