Langley and Tarelli - [2018] FamCA 545

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LANGLEY & TARELLI

[2018] FamCA 545

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen proceedings – Where the mother seeks to adduce further evidence relating exclusively to parenting following trial where judgment is reserved – Where the father and the Department of Family and Community Services oppose the application – Where the mother is unable to meet the emotional needs of the child – Where the evidence is not likely to impact the result of the parenting proceedings – Where it is not in the best interests of the child to delay the proceedings further – Application dismissed.

Stephens & Stephens & Anor (Enforcement) [2009] FamCAFC 240

APPLICANT:

Ms Langley

RESPONDENT:

Mr Tarelli

INTERVENOR:

The Department of Family and Community Services

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Robertson Solicitors

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

4311

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

27 June 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Schonell SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Executive Legal Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Shaw

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	B David & Associates
COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENER:	Ms Barnett

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENER:

Crown Solicitors Office

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Messner

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Robertson Solicitors

Orders

(Orders 1-23 omitted intentionally)

The application in a case of the mother filed on 28 May 2018 [amended on 20 June 2018] is dismissed.
In response to the application of the father filed 12 June 2018 in respect of costs, the mother is to file any written submissions on which she relies by close of business Friday 26 July 2018.

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 Langley & Tarelli 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 NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: PAC 4311 of 2014

Ms Langley

Applicant

And

Mr Tarelli

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application to reopen proceedings and adduce further evidence after a trial before me where judgment is reserved. The application to re-open relates exclusively to parenting. Adjustment of interest in de facto property was also an issue for determination.
The application in a case was filed on 28 May 2018 and amended three weeks later.
The applicant is Ms Langley, the mother of D, the subject child, now aged five years, five months. The mother was the respondent in the substantive proceedings. The respondents to the application in a case are, first, Mr Tarelli, the father of…

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 Langley and Tarelli

Details

AGLC: Langley and Tarelli [2018] FamCA 545
Case: [2018] FamCA 545
Decision Date: 27 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cleary J heard an application by the mother, filed on 28 May 2018 and amended on 20 June 2018, and a subsequent application by the father filed on 12 June 2018 concerning costs. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved applications made by both parents.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the mother's application. Additionally, the court was required to consider the father's application for costs.

Cleary J dismissed the mother's application. In relation to the father's application for costs, the court ordered that the mother was to file any written submissions she relied upon by close of business on Friday, 26 July 2018. The final form of the costs order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

(Orders 1-23 omitted intentionally)

24.

The application in a case of the mother filed on 28 May 2018 [amended on 20 June 2018] is dismissed.

25.

In response to the application of the father filed 12 June 2018 in respect of costs, the mother is to file any written submissions on which she relies by close of business Friday 26 July 2018.

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.