MEADOWS & MEADOWS - [2020] FamCA 12

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS

[2020] FamCA 12

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Where the applicant sought a review of the decision to reject two applications for filing – Where the applications sought orders including final parenting orders – Where the orders were sought notwithstanding similar issues had been addressed in final parenting proceedings and the applicant has appealed against those orders – Where in any event there is not enough time for the mother’s application to be heard and determined – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60I, 65F
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 5.01A

Elmi & Munro (2019) FLC 93-912; [2019] FamCAFC 138
Meadows & Meadows [2017] FCCA 14
Meadows & Meadows (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 491
Meadows & Meadows (2019) FLC 93-833; [2019] FamCAFC 1
Meadows & Meadows (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 644

Rice & Asplund (1979) 6 Fam LR 570; [1978] FamCA 84

APPLICANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

21 January 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Loughnan J

HEARING DATE:

10 January 2020

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT MOTHER IN PERSON

RESPONDENT FATHER IN PERSON

Orders

The Applications in a Case filed by the mother on 19, 24 and 31 December 2019 are dismissed.

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 Meadows & Meadows 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Applicant

And

Mr Meadows

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 19 December 2019 a Registrar made orders including an order rejecting for filing two applications lodged by Ms Meadows (“the mother”). On 19 December 2019 the mother filed an Application in a Case (“the Review Application”) seeking to review the Registrar’s decision. That application was heard on 10 January 2020.
The mother filed further review applications on 24 and 31 December 2019. They were not allocated return dates and the disposition of those applications was also referred to me.
What follows are the reasons for the orders set out at the commencement of this judgment.

The Hearing

Both the mother and Mr Meadows (“the father”) attended by telephone and each was without legal representation. The mother identified the evidence on which she sought to rely. Both parties made oral submissions and judgment was reserved, the parties being excused from attending on delivery of judgment.

The Applications

In the Review Application the mother sought the following orders:

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 & MEADOWS

Details

AGLC: MEADOWS & MEADOWS [2020] FamCA 12
Case: [2020] FamCA 12
Decision Date: 21 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, the mother, sought a review of a Registrar's decision to reject two applications for filing. These applications sought final parenting orders, despite similar issues having been addressed in prior final parenting proceedings from which the mother had appealed. The court was also presented with the practical difficulty that there was insufficient time for the mother's applications to be heard and determined.

The central legal issue before Loughnan J was whether the Registrar's decision to reject the applications for filing was correct, and consequently, whether the applications themselves should be dismissed. This involved considering the appropriateness of filing applications for final parenting orders in circumstances where related proceedings had already concluded and were the subject of an appeal, as well as the practical feasibility of hearing and determining the new applications within the available timeframe.

Loughnan J reasoned that the applications were an abuse of process, given the prior final parenting orders and the pending appeal. The court found that allowing the applications to proceed would be contrary to the principles of finality in litigation and would create an unacceptable duplication of proceedings. Furthermore, the lack of time to hear and determine the applications reinforced the conclusion that they should not be permitted to be filed.

Consequently, the court ordered that the applications in a case filed by the mother on 19, 24, and 31 December 2019 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applications in a Case filed by the mother on 19, 24 and 31 December 2019 are dismissed.

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.