Meadows and Meadows (No. 2) - [2019] FamCAFC 237

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCAFC 237

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of the transcript – Where it is accepted that the mother cannot afford to pay for the transcript – Where the prospects of success are not such that the interests of justice demand the provision of the transcript by the Court – Application dismissed – Mother permitted to provide the parts of the transcript that she considers relevant to the appeal – The mother is aware of the limitations that attend such a course.

Sampson & Hartnett (2013) FLC 93-542; [2010] FamCAFC 220

APPLICANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Wilkins

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

5 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

30 July 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 491

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 November 2019 be dismissed.
The orders as to the provision of the transcript made by an Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be varied to the extent that the applicant is obliged only to provide the parts of the transcript that she desires.
The date in Order (4) of the orders made by an Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be varied by deleting “11 December 2019” and inserting in its place “8 January 2020”.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Meadows & Meadows (No. 2) 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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 77 of 2019
File Number: PAC 3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Applicant

And

Mr Meadows

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ms Meadows (“the mother”) has appealed against parenting and property orders made by a judge of the Family Court of Australia in proceedings between her and Mr Meadows (“the father”). An Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) is also involved.
By an Application in an Appeal filed 13 November 2019, the mother seeks a number of different orders in relation to the provision of the transcript of the hearing before the primary judge because she says that she cannot afford the cost of obtaining it herself.
The parenting proceedings concern the parties’ child who was born in 2011. The primary judge’s orders provide for the child to live with the…

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 Meadows and Meadows (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Meadows and Meadows (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 237
Case: [2019] FamCAFC 237
Decision Date: 5 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meadows and Meadows (No. 2) involved an application filed by the appellant for an appeal against a decision made in the Family Court of Australia. The appeal centred around the costs associated with providing a transcript for the appeal and the deadline for filing this transcript. The appellant sought an order that would allow them to provide only parts of the transcript and an extension of the deadline for filing the transcript.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant could be required to provide only parts of the transcript and whether the deadline for filing the transcript could be extended. The appellant argued that providing a full transcript was not necessary for the appeal and that the deadline should be extended due to circumstances beyond their control. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that a full transcript was required and that the deadline should not be altered.

The court considered the relevant legislation and case law in determining these issues. It concluded that the appellant was not required to provide a full transcript if it was not necessary for the appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's circumstances warranted an extension of the deadline for filing the transcript. As such, the court varied the orders to allow the appellant to provide only the parts of the transcript that were necessary and to extend the deadline for filing the transcript. The application for an appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 November 2019 be dismissed.

The orders as to the provision of the transcript made by an Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be varied to the extent that the applicant is obliged only to provide the parts of the transcript that she desires.

The date in Order (4) of the orders made by an Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be varied by deleting “11 December 2019” and inserting in its place “8 January 2020”.

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.