FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MADSEN & FANCHER | [2016] FCCA 142 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Costs – application for costs – costs granted. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.43, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60I, 60J, 61DA, 65DAA(5), 65DAC, 69ZN, 106A, 117 |
| Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 Re JJT & Ors; Ex Parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] FLC 92-812 Bryant v Hawkesbury Radio Communication Co-operative Society Limited [2014] NSWSC 848 Other Articles Cited: Harman, “Should Mediation be the first step in all Family Law Act proceedings”? (2016) 27 ADRJ 1) | ||
| Applicant: | MS MADSEN | |
| Respondent: | MR FANCHER |
| File Number: | PAC 4716 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Harman |
| Hearing date: | 9 December 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 9 December 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Orders Pronounced: | 9 December 2015 |
| Delivered on: | 5 February 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr Humphreys of Godden Lawyers |
| No appearance by the Respondent |
ORDERS
Ms Madsen shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2008.
X shall live with her mother.
IT IS NOTED that the intention of the above Order for sole parental responsibility is to vest sole parental responsibility in Ms Madsen for both the purpose of the Family Law Act 1975 and section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005.
Dispense with any requirement for the signature of X’s father Mr Fancher for any Application for the issue of an Australian Passport or travel document.
Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 Ms Madsen shall be and is hereby authorised and permitted to remove X from the Commonwealth of Australia at such times, for such periods and to travel to such destinations as she may desire.
IT IS NOTED that these Orders are made in the absence of Mr Fancher who was personally served with process 29 October 2015 and has failed to…
Continue reading MADSEN & FANCHER
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Madsen and Fancher [2016] FCCA 142
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning centred on the mother's application for sole parental responsibility, which would enable her to travel internationally with X. Having been satisfied that the father had been afforded due process, the court proceeded to consider the merits of the mother's application. The court also considered a separate application for costs.
The court ordered that Ms Madsen have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born in 2008. It was further ordered that X live with her mother. The court also granted the application for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Ms Madsen shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2008.
X shall live with her mother.
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.