Lander and Bradbury - [2019] FamCA 164

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANDER & BRADBURY

[2019] FamCA 164

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay Application – Bond.

Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106
Sheldon & Weir (No. 4) [2010] FamCA 1214
Sheldon & Weir [2011] FamCA 2

APPLICANT:

Ms Lander

RESPONDENT:

Mr Bradbury

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

No appearance

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

239

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

20 March 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Infinity Legal

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Yeend & Co

Orders

The stay is refused.

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 Lander & Bradbury 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 239 of 2017

Ms Lander

Applicant

And

Mr Bradbury

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the Applicant Mother has, by an Application in a Case filed on 18 March 2019 and an affidavit filed on the same day, sought the stay of an order made following findings of contraventions made by her. The orders follow the contraventions being made on 14 March 2019 and require the Applicant to enter into a Bond on particular terms. The Applicant seeks a stay of the order that required her to forthwith enter into the Bond. I am told that she has not as yet entered into that Bond despite the requirement being that it be entered into forthwith.
At this stage the Applicant has not yet filed a Notice of Appeal. She says that she will file one by this coming Monday, which appears at face value to be within the designated appeal period.
Rule 22.11 enables a party to apply for an order staying the operation of orders, if an appeal has been started. The Applicant does not fall into that category and so to consider whether or not a stay should be given it will be necessary to dispense with compliance with Rule 22.11.
There is good reason at this stage to dispense with compliance with that Rule, noting the main purpose of the Rules at Rule 1.04 as it relates to the administration of justice and the effect that granting relief would have on each party and parties to other cases in the Court. It may be anticipated without being advised that it is the case, that if leave, or rather dispensation from the Rules, is not granted at this point that on 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 Lander and Bradbury

Details

AGLC: Lander and Bradbury [2019] FamCA 164
Case: [2019] FamCA 164
Decision Date: 20 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Lander and Bradbury*, heard before Gill J, the dispute concerned an application for a stay of proceedings. The applicant sought to halt the ongoing legal action, the precise nature of which is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings. This required the Court to consider the applicant's arguments for why the litigation should be temporarily suspended.

Gill J refused the application for a stay. While the specific reasons for this refusal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the decision indicates that the applicant failed to satisfy the necessary legal threshold for granting such an order. The Court’s determination was that the proceedings should continue without interruption.

Orders

Orders of the court

The stay is refused.

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.