MEADOWS & MEADOWS - [2020] FamCAFC 35

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS

[2020] FamCAFC 35

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF APPEAL REGISTRAR'S DECISION – Where the Appeal Registrar rejected the applicant's Summary of Argument for non-compliance with the Practice Directions – Where the applicant was ordered to comply with the Practice Direction and file a Summary of Argument limited to fifteen pages – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.40
Family Court of Australia, Practice Directions No. 1 of 2017 – Conduct of Appeals, 22 December 2016

Bele & Vaughan (No.2) [2012] FamCAFC 125
Wellington & Child Support Registrar [2012] FamCAFC 34

APPELLANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

18 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace J

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

30 July 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 491

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

Litigant in person

THE RESPONDENT:

Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Phillip Wilkins

Orders

The Application in an Appeal EAA 77 of 2019 for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision be dismissed.
The appellant to file and serve a Summary of Argument not exceeding
15 pages by 4 pm on 18 February 2020.
Order 6 of the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be amended so that the date 8 January 2020 is substituted for 18 February 2020.

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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

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

Ms Meadows

Appellant

and

Mr Meadows

Respondent

and

The Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an Application in an Appeal filed 14 January 2020 Ms Meadows (“the mother”) seeks to review a decision of an Appeal Registrar made on 10 January 2020 in relation to the mother’s Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, as it failed to comply with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017 - Conduct of Appeal (“Practice Direction”). That direction states that a Summary of Argument must not exceed 15 pages in length.
The appeal is in relation to final parenting and property orders made by a judge of the Family Court of Australia…

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] FamCAFC 35
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 35
Decision Date: 18 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meadows and Meadows was an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was the refusal by the Appeal Registrar to allow the appellant to file a Notice of Contention. The refusal was based on the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar. The appellant sought a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the appellant's Notice of Contention, and whether the refusal was justified. The court had to consider the relevant rules and procedures governing appeals in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the Appeal Registrar had no authority to refuse the Notice of Contention and that the refusal was unjust. The respondents argued that the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the Notice of Contention and that the refusal was justified.

The court held that the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the appellant's Notice of Contention as it was in accordance with the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar. The court also held that the refusal was justified as the appellant had failed to comply with the procedural orders. The court noted that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Contention. The court further held that the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural orders had caused significant delay and inconvenience to the respondents. The court also held that the appellant's application for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision was not well-founded. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the appellant file and serve a Summary of Argument not exceeding 15 pages by 4 pm on 18 February 2020. The court also amended Order 6 of the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar so that the date 8 January 2020 was substituted for 18 February 2020. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal EAA 77 of 2019 for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision be dismissed.

The appellant to file and serve a Summary of Argument not exceeding

15 pages by 4 pm on 18 February 2020.

Order 6 of the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be amended so that the date 8 January 2020 is substituted for 18 February 2020.

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.