Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application by Wife’s solicitor to amend reasons – issues of and distinction between jurisdiction and power of Court to make such amendments not addressed in Applicant Solicitor’s submissions – no consideration in written submissions of the court being functus officio – the Applicant expressly rejected reliance upon the “slip rule” to amend or to correct the Court’s reasons – discretionary considerations to make (or not make) the amendment to reasons sought – reliance upon s.121 Family Law Act to ground jurisdiction and power to amend – question of relevance and applicability of s.121 to a solicitor for a party as opposed to a party to the proceedings – failure of submissions to consider relevant “exceptions” to non-publication under s.121(9)(e) – failure of submissions to address the issue of “standing” and the capacity to intervene in proceedings that were finalised before this Court.
Australian Family Law, (R. Chisholm & editors) (Sydney: LexisNexis 1987) Vol.1 Australian Family Law & Practice (M. Broun QC & editors) (Sydney: CCH Australia, 2005) Vol.2 J. Tarrant, Amending Final Judgments and Orders, (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2010)
Applicant:
MS KHALID
Respondent:
Intervener:
MR KHALID
Wife’s Solicitor
File Number:
CAC 128 of 2014
Judgment of:
Judge Neville
Hearing date:
8 March 2016
Date of Last Submission:
17 May 2016
Delivered at:
Canberra
Delivered on:
30 September 2016
REPRESENTATION
Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms J Haughton
Solicitors for the Applicant:
Infinity Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:
Self represented
Solicitor/Advocate for the Independent Children's Lawyer:
Mr D Ridge
Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:
Counsel for the…
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 Khalid and Khalid (Intervener Application)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Khalid and Khalid (Intervener Application) [2016] FCCA 2531
Case
[2016] FCCA 2531
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application filed on 27 October 2015 by an intervener in proceedings between Khalid and Khalid. The specific nature of the dispute between the primary parties, Khalid and Khalid, is not detailed in the provided text, nor is the precise role or interest of the intervener. The decision was made by Judge Neville.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the intervener's application should be granted or dismissed. The court was required to consider the merits of the intervener's request to participate in or influence the existing proceedings between Khalid and Khalid.
Judge Neville dismissed the intervener's application. While the reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court found no sufficient basis to permit the intervention. The court made no order as to costs, suggesting that neither party was awarded their legal expenses in relation to this specific application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application in a Case, filed 27th October 2015, be dismissed.