Meadis and Meadis and Ors - [2019] FamCAFC 146

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADIS & MEADIS AND ORS

[2019] FamCAFC 146

FAMILY LAW – APPEALS – COSTS – Where the appellant father consented to an order that his appeal be dismissed during the appeal hearing – Where the father is unrepresented – Where the respondent mother sought an order for costs – Where the father opposed an order for costs due to his impecuniosity – Where the father is incarcerated and relies on his parents for financial support – Where neither the mother or the father is in receipt of legal aid – Where the father’s conduct warrants an order for costs – Where the father is ordered to pay a portion of the mother’s costs – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.18(1)(a)

Nada & Nettle (Costs) (2014) FLC 93-612; [2014] FamCAFC 207

APPELLANT:

Mr Meadis

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Meadis

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr A Meadis

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Ms B Meadis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Joliman Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

11834

2016

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

2 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Alstergren CJ, Aldridge & Austin JJ

HEARING DATE:

6 June 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

15 November 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FCCA 3787

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

In person by video link

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Mr Testart

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Harris Lieberman Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Did not participate

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Dawes & Vary Riordan

COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD

RESPONDENT:

Did not participate

SOLICITOR FOR THE THIRD

RESPONDENT:

Dawes & Vary Riordan

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Did not participate

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Joliman Lawyers

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.
There be costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

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 Meadis & Meadis and Ors 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 92 of 2018
File Number: MLC 11834 of 2016

Mr Meadis

Appellant

And

Ms Meadis

First Respondent

And

Mr A Meadis

Second Respondent

And

Ms B Meadis

Third Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

By a Notice of Appeal filed 13 December 2018, the appellant father (“the father”) brought an appeal against interim orders made by the primary judge…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meadis and Meadis and Ors 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: [2019] FamCAFC 146
Decision Date: 2 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meadis and Meadis and Ors was a legal dispute that came before a court in Australia. The nature of the dispute involved multiple parties, with the specifics of the case not fully detailed in the summary. The court was tasked with resolving the issues presented by the parties involved. The case was heard and decided upon by an Australian court, although the specific court was not identified in the summary.

The legal issues before the court were complex and required careful consideration. The court was required to interpret and apply relevant laws and legal principles to determine the outcome of the case. The issues likely involved various aspects of the law, including but not limited to contractual obligations, property rights, or personal injury claims. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and make a decision based on the merits of the case.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court came to a decision. The appeal brought forth by the appellant was dismissed, meaning that the lower court's decision was upheld. The court also determined that costs in the amount of $5,000 should be paid by the appellant to the respondent. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the legal issues and the evidence presented. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records, ensuring that the decision was properly documented and enforceable.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

There be costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

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.