Marino and Bello and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MARINO & BELLO & ANOR [2020] FCCA 1727
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application in a Case – Parenting orders – best interests of the children – Reasonable apprehension of bias – abuse of process – multiple proceedings – whether the threshold issue is worthy of consideration – whether summary dismissal should be ordered – the application in a case is dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.65C(c)

Cases cited:

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Mankiewicz and Anor v Swallow and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 153

Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) 26 Fam LR 505

SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 668

Applicant: MR MARINO
First Respondent: MR BELLO
Second Respondent: MS BELLO
File Number: PAC 437 of 2020
Judgment of: Judge Humphreys
Hearing date: 26 June 2020
Date of Last Submission: 26 June 2020
Delivered at: Parramatta
Delivered on: 26 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person Appeared at the hearing at 10:00am, however, did not appear when judgment was delivered at 11:30am
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms Dart

ORDERS

  1. The Application of 16 June 2020 be dismissed.

  2. The Applicant to file and serve a Case Summary Outline for the Summary Dismissal Application on or before 10 July 2020.

  3. Direct that Applicant limit the Case Summary Outline document to 20 pages in length.

  4. The Respondent to file and serve any submissions in response on or before 17 July 2020.

  5. Direct that no further evidence or Applications be filed by the applicant, other than a case summary document referred to in Order 2 and the Registry is directed, not to receive those documents.

  6. Any other listings of this matter be vacated, pending the decision of the Summary Dismissal Application.

  7. Costs for today be reserved.

d

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 437 of 2020

MR MARINO

Applicant

And

MR BELLO

First Respondent

MS BELLO

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

(As revised from transcript)

Introduction

  1. Mr Marino (“the applicant”), is the brother of Ms Bello (“the second respondent”). The first and second respondents are the parents of three children; X (“X”), 7 years of age, Y (“Y”), 4 years of age and Z (“Z”), 3 years of age.

  2. The respondents’ and the applicant are estranged. Various allegations of domestic violence committed by the applicant, have been made by the second respondent.

  3. It is contended, that the applicant has only had two contacts with X and has never seen Y and Z.

  4. On 30 January 2020, the applicant filed an Initiating Application seeking orders that he be allowed to spend reasonable time with each of the three children named above and attend any and all important life events including, but not limited to, Birthdays, Christenings, Christmas etcetera.

  5. A further parental order was sought by the applicant, seeking…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Marino and Bello and Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] FCCA 1727
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Marino and Bello and Anor*, heard before Judge Humphreys, the dispute concerned an application in a case relating to parenting orders and the best interests of the children. The application raised issues of a reasonable apprehension of bias and abuse of process, particularly in the context of multiple proceedings. The court was required to consider whether a threshold issue concerning these matters was worthy of consideration and whether the application should be summarily dismissed.

The court's reasoning focused on the overarching principle of the best interests of the children in parenting proceedings. Judge Humphreys considered the allegations of bias and abuse of process in light of the need for finality and efficiency in family law matters. The court determined that the application, as presented, did not meet the necessary threshold to warrant further consideration in a manner that would delay or disrupt the primary parenting proceedings.

Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the Application of 16 June 2020. Further directions were given regarding the filing of a Case Summary Outline for the summary dismissal application, with limitations on its length, and the filing of submissions in response. The court also directed that no further evidence or applications be filed by the applicant, other than the specified case summary, and that any other listings of the matter be vacated pending the decision on the summary dismissal application. Costs for the day were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application of 16 June 2020 be dismissed.

2.

The Applicant to file and serve a Case Summary Outline for the Summary Dismissal Application on or before 10 July 2020.

3.

Direct that Applicant limit the Case Summary Outline document to 20 pages in length.

4.

The Respondent to file and serve any submissions in response on or before 17 July 2020.

5.

Direct that no further evidence or Applications be filed by the applicant, other than a case summary document referred to in Order 2 and the Registry is directed, not to receive those documents.

6.

Any other listings of this matter be vacated, pending the decision of the Summary Dismissal Application.

7.

Costs for today be reserved.

d

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.