FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KILLAM & LOENG | [2015] FamCAFC 41 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the father has resided in China for 15 years – Where the mother and children have never resided in Australia – Where children have dual citizenship – Where the children have close relationships with family in China –Where the parties were on a holiday to Australia – Where the father retained the children’s passports so as to prevent them returning to China – Where the primary judge ordered the children be permitted to leave Australia to be returned to China – Whether the primary judge properly considered the children’s best interests – Whether the primary judge summarily dismissed the father’s application for parenting orders without giving proper consideration to the relevant principles – Whether the primary judge ought to have considered the likely outcome of parenting proceedings under Chinese law in considering the children’s best interests – Whether the primary judge gave appropriate weight to a risk that the children may be separated in China – Where the father alleges that he would suffer prejudice in family law proceedings in China – Whether there was an agreement between the parties to relocate to Australia – Whether the children would experience negative impacts if they were not returned to China – Whether the children had a significant association with Australia – Whether the primary judge’s findings were open on the evidence – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where there were circumstances justifying an order for costs – significant wealth of the parties – Appeal wholly unsuccessful and without merit. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| Australian Coal & Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296 EJK & TSL [2006] FamCA 730 In re F (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1991] Fam 25 In re J (a child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80 In re L (Minors) [1974] 1 WLR 250 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 McKee v McKee (1957) AC 352 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 Pascarl and Oxley (2013) FLC 93-536 Randle & Randle [2011] FamCA 830 Reynolds v Reynolds (1973) 1 ALR 318 Ryan & Russell [2013] FamCA 787 ZP v PS (1994) 181 CLR 639 |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Killam |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Loeng |
FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 125 | of | 2015 |
APPEAL NUMBER: | NA | 6 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 18 March 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
JUDGMENT OF: | Finn, May & Ainslie-Wallace JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 18 February 2015 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 6 February 2015 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2015] FamCA 53 |
REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr S. T. White SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Jones Mitchell Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr J. Linklater-Steele |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Cassandra Pullos Lawyers |
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, the costs to be…
Continue reading Killam & Loeng
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Killam & Loeng [2015] FamCAFC 41
- Case
- [2015] FamCAFC 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the primary judge properly assessed the children's best interests, whether the father's application for parenting orders was properly dismissed, and if the primary judge should have considered the potential impact of Chinese law on the children's best interests. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge appropriately weighed the risk of the children being separated in China and if the father's claim of prejudice in Chinese family law proceedings was adequately addressed. The appeal also challenged whether there was an agreement to relocate to Australia, the potential negative impacts on the children if they were not returned to China, and the children's association with Australia. Ultimately, the court found that the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the primary judge had appropriately considered the children's best interests and that the appeal was wholly unsuccessful and without merit. Consequently, the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the appeal. The costs were to be agreed upon, with a fallback to assessment, and were to be paid within 28 days of agreement or assessment.
In conclusion, the court's ruling upheld the primary judge's decision and imposed costs on the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal. This decision underscores the importance of considering the best interests of the children, the potential implications of foreign law, and the unique circumstances of each family law case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, the costs to be agreed and failing agreement to be assessed. Such costs to be paid 28 days after agreement or assessment.
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.