Macleay and Glenister - [2019] FamCA 646

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MACLEAY & GLENISTER

[2019] FamCA 646

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM APPLICATIONS – for a raft of parenting orders – also for spousal maintenance and sole use orders.

Age of Majority Act 1977 (Vic)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 11F, 60CC, 72, 74, 75, 77, 114

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Deiter v Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104
Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490

In the Marriage of Briers (1978) FLC 90‑483
In the Marriage of Davis (1976) 1 Fam LR 11,522
In the Marriage of Dean (1977) 2 Fam LR 11,691
In the Marriage of Fedele (1986) 10 Fam LR 1069
In the Marriage of Gillie (1978) 4 Fam LR 127
In the Marriage of Healy [1979] FLC 90‑706
In the Marriage of Jolly (1978) FLC 90‑458

In the Marriage of Redman & Redman (1987) 11 Fam LR 411

In the Marriage of Rowe (1980) 6 Fam LR 435
In the Marriage of Sieling (1979) 4 FamLR 713

In the Marriage of Stein (2000) 25 Fam LR 727

In the Marriage of Stone (1976) 2 Fam LR 11,235
In the Marriage of Wolifson (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,627

Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

Perdicari & Perdicari [2019] FamCAFC 147

Redmond & Redmond [2014] FamCAFC 155
Salah & Salah (2016) 56 Fam LR 299

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13

APPLICANT:

Ms Macleay

RESPONDENT:

Mr Glenister

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

8407

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

12 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Wilson J

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr A. Robinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Blackwood Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms M. Smallwood

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the applicant’s application for interim orders are dismissed.
The interim application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.
The interim application for an order that the applicant have sole use and occupancy of the family home is dismissed.
All interim parenting applications are referred to the Senior Registrar.
The application for hair follicle testing is dismissed.
The application for the provision of valuation evidence is refused.
Costs are reserved.

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 Macleay & Glenister 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 8407 of 2019

Ms Macleay

Applicant

And

Mr Glenister

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

While sitting in the Judicial Duty List on 10 September 2019 I…

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 Macleay and Glenister

Details

AGLC: Macleay and Glenister [2019] FamCA 646
Case: [2019] FamCA 646
Decision Date: 12 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Macleay, sought various interim orders against the respondent, Glenister, in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned interim spousal maintenance, interim sole use and occupancy of the family home, interim parenting orders, hair follicle testing, and the provision of valuation evidence.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant's interim applications for spousal maintenance and sole use and occupancy of the family home. Further, the court had to consider the interim parenting applications, the application for hair follicle testing, and the application for valuation evidence.

Wilson J dismissed the applicant's interim applications for spousal maintenance and sole use and occupancy of the family home. The court also dismissed the application for hair follicle testing and refused the application for the provision of valuation evidence. All interim parenting applications were referred to the Senior Registrar. Costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the applicant’s application for interim orders are dismissed.

The interim application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.

The interim application for an order that the applicant have sole use and occupancy of the family home is dismissed.

All interim parenting applications are referred to the Senior Registrar.

The application for hair follicle testing is dismissed.

The application for the provision of valuation evidence is refused.

Costs are reserved.

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.