Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) - [2021] FamCAFC 36

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) [2021] FamCAFC 36

Appeal from: Tarelli & Langley (No. 5) [2021] FamCA 26

Appeal number(s): EAA 17 of 2021

File number(s): PAC 4311 of 2014

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J

Date of judgment: 12 March 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – Appeal against stay of final parenting orders – Reasonable explanation for delay – Appeal expedited – Application granted.

Legislation: Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 24.05(2)

Cases cited: Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30

Division: Appeal Division

Number of paragraphs: 15

Date of hearing: 12 March 2021

Place: Sydney (via video link)

ORDERS

EAA 17 of 2021
PAC 4311 of 2014

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
MS LANGLEY

Applicant

AND:
MR TARELLI

First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND JUSTICE

Second Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The time in which the applicant is to file and serve the Notice of Appeal is extended up to and including Tuesday 16 March 2021.
2.The appeal is fixed for hearing at the same time as the Appeal No. EAA 1 of 2021, on Monday 12 April 2021 at 10.00 am.
3.Leave is granted to the parties to approach the Appeal Registrar for the making of such directions that may be necessary in having the appeal ready to proceed on Monday 12 April 2021.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:
INTRODUCTION

By an Amended Application in an Appeal filed on 9 March 2021, Ms Langley (“the mother”) seeks an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal against a decision given by a judge of the Family Court of Australia on 22 January 2021.
That same judge made final parenting orders between the mother and Mr Tarelli (“the father”) on 18 December 2020.
Also involved in the proceedings was the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice. The child was represented by an Independent Children’s Lawyer.
In short, the effect of those final parenting orders were that the child who had been living for some time with the father was henceforth to live with the mother. A Notice of Appeal against that decision was filed by the father on 4 January 2021. That appeal…

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 & Tarelli (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) [2021] FamCAFC 36
Case: [2021] FamCAFC 36
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) involved an application to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal against a stay of final parenting orders. The applicant sought an extension of time, as well as an expedited hearing of the appeal, due to the circumstances surrounding the delay. The application was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal, and whether the appeal should be expedited.

The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the delay and the potential impact on the child involved. The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was primarily due to the complexity of the case and the need for further legal advice. The court also considered the importance of resolving the matter expeditiously to avoid further uncertainty for the child. As a result, the court granted the application for an extension of time and expedited the hearing of the appeal.

In summary, the court granted the applicant's application to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal and expedited the hearing of the appeal. The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and that it was in the best interests of the child to resolve the matter as soon as possible. The appeal was fixed for hearing on the same day as another related appeal, and the parties were granted leave to approach the Appeal Registrar for necessary directions to prepare for the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The time in which the applicant is to file and serve the Notice of Appeal is extended up to and including Tuesday 16 March 2021.

2. The appeal is fixed for hearing at the same time as the Appeal No. EAA 1 of 2021, on Monday 12 April 2021 at 10.00 am.

3. Leave is granted to the parties to approach the Appeal Registrar for the making of such directions that may be necessary in having the appeal ready to proceed on Monday 12 April 2021.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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.

Appeal from:	Tarelli & Langley (No. 5) [2021] FamCA 26
Appeal number(s):	EAA 17 of 2021
File number(s):	PAC 4311 of 2014
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	12 March 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – Appeal against stay of final parenting orders – Reasonable explanation for delay – Appeal expedited – Application granted.
Legislation:	Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 24.05(2)
Cases cited:	Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30
Division:	Appeal Division
Number of paragraphs:	15
Date of hearing:	12 March 2021
Place:	Sydney (via video link)

EAA 17 of 2021 PAC 4311 of 2014
APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:	MS LANGLEY Applicant
AND:	MR TARELLI First Respondent DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND JUSTICE Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MARCH 2021