Meadows & Meadows (No 4) - [2020] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 4)

[2020] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from an order dismissing an Application to Review a Registrar’s Decision – Reasons given in short form pursuant to s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appeal has no merit – Abuse of process – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94(2A)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 24.10

APPELLANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

26 May 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney (via video and telephone link)

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ

HEARING DATE:

1 April 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

21 January 2020

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2020] FamCA 12

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

Litigant in person

THE RESPONDENT:

Litigant in person

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 26 February 2020 to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
Appeal no. EAA 15 of 2020 against the orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 21 January 2020 is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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 (No. 4) 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 SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EAA 15 of 2020
File Number: PAC 3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Appellant

And

Mr Meadows

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 30 July 2019 a judge of the Family Court made final parenting and property orders as between Ms Meadows (“the mother”) and Mr Meadows (“the father”). The parenting orders concerned the parties’ child, B who was born on … 2011. His Honour’s orders broadly provided that the child would live with the father and spend time with the mother. The child would first spend unsupervised time with the mother each second Saturday from 10.00 am until 2.00 pm with a gradual increase over a six month period leading ultimately to the mother and child spending time with each other each second Saturday from 10.00 am until 6.00 pm. The orders also provided for the child to spend time with the mother on each Mother’s Day. The mother appealed those orders (Appeal no. EAA 77 of 2019).
As will be developed, this appeal (Appeal no. EAA 15 of 2020) is wholly lacking in merit and, in our opinion, represents an abuse…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: Meadows & Meadows (No 4) [2020] FamCAFC 125
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 125
Decision Date: 26 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meadows & Meadows (No 4) involved the parties, Meadows, in a family law matter. The primary dispute arose from an application seeking to adduce further evidence in an appeal against orders made by a judge of the Family Court of Australia. The application was filed on 26 February 2020, and the appeal, numbered EAA 15 of 2020, was against the orders made on 21 January 2020. The appeal was heard and determined by the court.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the admissibility of new evidence in the context of an appeal and the discretion of the court to permit such evidence. The court needed to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the admission of further evidence and whether the proposed evidence could have reasonably been presented during the original proceedings. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the impact of any potential delay or prejudice to the other party that might result from allowing the additional evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of new evidence. The court reasoned that the evidence sought to be introduced could have been provided during the original proceedings, and its late presentation was not justified. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the opposing party and concluded that permitting the additional evidence would not be in the interests of justice. Consequently, the application to adduce further evidence was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed. No order was made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 26 February 2020 to adduce further evidence is dismissed.

Appeal no. EAA 15 of 2020 against the orders of a judge of the Family Court of Australia made on 21 January 2020 is dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.