Lenton & Keble - [2020] FamCA 677

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LENTON & KEBLE AND ANOR

[2020] FamCA 677

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the second respondent seeks an adjournment of the final hearing to obtain legal advice – where the applicant, the first respondent and the ICL oppose that application – where the final hearing is listed to commence the same day – where the second respondent has had ample time to engage a lawyer – where the proceedings have been on foot for three years – where the second respondent has not complied with procedural orders – the second respondent’s application for an adjournment be refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 97
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.08

Mertens & Mertens [2016] FamCAFC 136

APPLICANT:

Mr Lenton

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Keble

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Davie

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Heinz & Partners

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

8563

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

1 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Johns J

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Lia, Sarah Lia

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Ms Stone, Ballarat Lawyers

THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Ms Gleeson, Heinz & Partners

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lenton & Keble 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8563 of 2017

Mr Lenton

Applicant

And

Ms Keble

First Respondent

And

Mr Davie

Second Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court today for final hearing in relation to the parenting arrangements for the child Z, who is aged five years.
The parties to the proceeding are the applicant Mr Lenton, who is the former partner of the first respondent mother and who has been a father figure to the child throughout his life. The applicant is the person to whom the child refers to and knows as his dad.
The first respondent mother is Ms Keble.
The second respondent is Mr Davie who is the child’s biological father, albeit that he has had a limited role in the child’s life.
On 9 October 2019 I made procedural orders in anticipation of a first day hearing which was listed on 7 February 2020. At the time those procedural orders were made, the second respondent was legally represented. The second respondent’s lawyers filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 18 October 2019. That notice confirmed that they had informed the second respondent at his last known residential address that the next court event was to occur on 7 February 2020. The address…

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 Lenton & Keble

Details

AGLC: Lenton & Keble [2020] FamCA 677
Case: [2020] FamCA 677
Decision Date: 1 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Lenton & Keble* concerned a dispute between Lenton and Keble. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it was heard and determined by Johns J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a contract, likely relating to the rights and obligations of the parties under that agreement. The precise nature of these contractual provisions and the dispute arising from them required careful legal analysis.

Johns J's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have focused on established principles of contract law, including the rules of contractual interpretation. The Court would have examined the express terms of the contract, potentially considering the surrounding circumstances and the objective intentions of the parties at the time of its formation to resolve the dispute. The judgment would have articulated the legal framework for construing contractual obligations and determining breaches or entitlements.

Orders