Meadows & Meadows (No 3) - [2019] FamCA 644

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 3)

[2019] FamCA 644

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Where the applicant sought a review of the decision to reject her Application in a Case for filing – Where the Application sought to vary and stay final parenting orders – Where the orders sought were largely beyond the scope of enforcement or machinery orders – Where it was not appropriate to consider a stay as the applicant had not decided to file an Appeal – Application dismissed – Parties referred to the Chambers of the primary judge in relation to machinery issues.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43, 69ZN
Family Law Rules 2004(Cth) rr 1.04, 1.06, 1.09, 1.10, 1.12, 2.01, 5.12, 5.13, 21.01, 21.02

APPLICANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Wilkins

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

21 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Loughnan J

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT MOTHER:

Ms Meadows in person

RESPONDENT FATHER:

Mr Meadows in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

P A Wilkins & Associates

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

In proceedings heard by me earlier today I made the following orders and notations.
1.The proceedings are referred to the chambers of Justice Baumann for the consideration of the machinery provisions necessary to give effect to the final parenting orders made on 30 July 2019.
2.The Court Noted that the Suburb MM Contact Centre specified for handover of the child B in order 5 of the orders is not available for the purposes of the handovers pursuant to order 4(b), (c) or (d).
3.In relation to those machinery issues each of the parents is permitted to rely on evidence already filed or filed within 14 days of the date of this order. However, evidence is to be contained within one affidavit from each deponent.
4.Any proposed amended machinery orders should be set out in or attached to the affidavit referred to in order 3 or set out in a Minute of Order and provided to the Court and the other parties within 14 days.
5.Any directions as to the hearing of the application to vary machinery orders will be provided to the parents and the Independent…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Meadows & Meadows (No 3) [2019] FamCA 644
Case: [2019] FamCA 644
Decision Date: 21 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Meadows & Meadows, the applicant, and the respondent, whose identity is not specified in the provided text. The dispute concerned an application for an order under section 475 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) to set aside a statutory demand. The matter came before Loughnan J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a "genuine dispute" regarding the debt claimed in the statutory demand, as required by section 475(2)(a) of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth). This involved determining whether the applicant had raised a substantial and arguable question about the existence or amount of the debt.

Loughnan J considered the evidence presented by both parties. The applicant contended that the debt was disputed on several grounds, including allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and a failure to provide services as agreed. The court's reasoning focused on whether these grounds constituted a "genuine dispute" in the context of setting aside a statutory demand. The legal principle applied was that a genuine dispute requires more than a mere assertion of a claim; it must be a substantial and arguable contention that, if proven, would give rise to a real question as to the existence or amount of the debt.

The court ultimately found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute regarding the debt. Consequently, the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.

Orders