Leach and Leahy - [2014] FCCA 1178

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEACH & LEAHY

[2014] FCCA 1178

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders – whether parental responsibility for education and health decisions to be shared or to be sole responsibility of wife – whether time spent to be altered to accommodate additional Chinese cultural festivals and Australian public holidays – whether husband to have additional time spent with children on his birthday – whether husband’s time spent with children at Christmas to be adjusted – whether place of changeover to change – whether non-departure and airport watch list orders to be made.

Legislation:

Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic), s.2.1.1(a)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60CA, 60CC(2), (3), (4), (4A), 61DA, 62G(8), 64B(2)(c), (d) and (i), 65D(2), 65DAA, 69ZN(1), (2), (3) and (7), 69ZQ(1)(a), 69ZT(1)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r.15.04
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.23.01A(5)(b)

Chappell & Chappell (2008) 39 Fam LR 627; [2008] FamCAFC 143

DL & W [2012] FamCAFC 5
Dundas & Blake [2013] FamCAFC 133
Hall v Hall (1979) 29 ALR 545

In the Marriage of B.B.T. & J.M.T. (1980) FLC 90-809

In the Marriage of Harris (1977) 29 FLR 285; [1977] FLC 90-276
In the Marriage of Rice & Asplund (1978) 6 Fam LR 570
In the Marriage of Wood (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,182; 11 ALR 657; [1976] FLC 90-098
Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80
Marsden v Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152
Staats v Staats (1970) 16 FLR 279
Wilson v Wilson [2013] FamCAFC 43

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (7^th Edn) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)

Applicant:

MS LEACH

Respondent:

MR LEAHY

File Number:

MLC 1355 of 2008

Judgment of:

Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing dates:

29 and 30 August 2013

Date of Last Submission:

30 August 2013

Delivered at:

Melbourne (by telephone)

Delivered on:

6 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Smallwood

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Lampe Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Wald

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Bruce Pippett

ORDERS

That the parties confer and by 27 June 2014 file a minute of proposed consent order to give effect to the Court’s Reasons for Judgment.
If the parties are unable to agree upon the terms of a minute of proposed consent order for the purposes of order (1), then each party is to file and serve by 11 July 2014 a minute of proposed order, and the matter is to be listed for mention on 22 July 2014 at 9.00am before Judge Lucev.
Any application for costs is to be made in writing by 8 August 2014, with any reply to such an application to be filed by 15 August 2014, and any such application to be determined by the Court on the papers.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Leach & Leahy is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 1355 of 2008

MS LEACH

Applicant

And

MR LEAHY

Respondent

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 Leach and Leahy

Details

AGLC: Leach and Leahy [2014] FCCA 1178
Case: [2014] FCCA 1178
Decision Date: 6 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Leach and Leahy*, heard before Judge Antoni Lucev, the dispute concerned the division of property between the parties. The specific nature of the dispute, beyond the general context of property division, is not detailed in the provided text.

The court was required to determine the terms of a consent order to give effect to its reasons for judgment. In the event that the parties could not reach an agreement on these terms, the court would then be required to determine the proposed orders put forward by each party. The court also needed to consider any applications for costs.

The court's reasoning and the legal principles applied are not explicitly stated in the provided text. However, the orders indicate a process for achieving a final resolution of the property dispute. The court directed the parties to confer and attempt to reach a consent order. If this proved unsuccessful, the court outlined a procedure for each party to submit their proposed orders for the court's determination. The court also established a timeline for the submission and determination of any costs applications.

The court made orders for the parties to confer and file a minute of proposed consent order by 27 June 2014. If agreement could not be reached, each party was to file their own proposed order by 11 July 2014, with the matter to be mentioned on 22 July 2014. Applications for costs were to be made in writing by 8 August 2014, with replies by 15 August 2014, and to be determined by the court on the papers.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the parties confer and by 27 June 2014 file a minute of proposed consent order to give effect to the Court’s Reasons for Judgment.

If the parties are unable to agree upon the terms of a minute of proposed consent order for the purposes of order (1), then each party is to file and serve by 11 July 2014 a minute of proposed order, and the matter is to be listed for mention on 22 July 2014 at 9.00am before Judge Lucev.

Any application for costs is to be made in writing by 8 August 2014, with any reply to such an application to be filed by 15 August 2014, and any such application to be determined by the Court on the papers.

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.