Metford and Faddin - [2019] FamCAFC 176

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

METFORD & FADDIN

[2019] FamCAFC 176

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the father seeks an extension of time to appeal from a costs order against him fixed in the sum of $6,000 – Where a sum of $4,682 for costs was fixed following an application brought about due to the father having retained the children on some five occasions contrary to orders – Where the father’s Notice of Appeal raises no substantial issue – Where the mother should not be prejudiced by being subjected to a meritless appeal – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 94AAA(5), 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.03
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 22.02, sch 1

Fleming & Schmidt [2017] FamCAFC 12
Metford & Faddin [2018] FCCA 278
Metford & Faddin (No. 4) [2018] FCCA 3960
Pendleton & Pendleton [2018] FamCAFC 203
Robinson and Higginbotham (1991) FLC 92-209; [1991] FamCA 4

APPLICANT:

Mr Metford

RESPONDENT:	Ms Faddin
FILE NUMBER:	BRC	9993	of	2017

APPEAL NUMBER:

NOA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

11 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Kent J

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

30 November 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FCCA 3832

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

Self-represented via telephone

THE RESPONDENT:

Self-represented in person

Orders

The Applicant be granted leave to rely on his Summaries of Argument filed on 2 May 2019 and 15 May 2019.
The Applicant’s Application in an Appeal filed on 15 March 2019 be 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 Metford & Faddin 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 BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NOA 22 of 2019
File Number: BRC 9993 of 2017

Mr Metford

Applicant

And

Ms Faddin

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Mr Metford (“the father”) to extend the time to appeal from a costs order made by a trial judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“the Federal Circuit Court”) on 30 November 2018. The order arises out of parenting proceedings[1] between the father and Ms Faddin (“the mother”) concerning their children.
[1] Pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
The order required the father to pay the mother’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,000 on or before 31 January 2019. There has…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Metford and Faddin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FamCAFC 176
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Metford and Faddin is a case before the court, where the Applicant, Metford, seeks to rely on his Summaries of Argument filed on two separate dates in May 2019. Additionally, Metford has filed an Application in an Appeal on 15 March 2019. The court was tasked with determining whether Metford should be granted leave to rely on the Summaries of Argument and whether his Application in an Appeal should proceed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Summaries of Argument were sufficient and relevant to the case, and whether the Application in an Appeal met the necessary criteria for consideration. The court had to consider the procedural rules and relevant case law to make its decision.

The court found that Metford should be granted leave to rely on the Summaries of Argument, deeming them appropriate for the case. However, the Application in an Appeal was dismissed as it did not meet the necessary criteria. The court also noted that there would be no order as to costs, leaving the matter of costs undecided. The form of the order is pending final entry into the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant be granted leave to rely on his Summaries of Argument filed on 2 May 2019 and 15 May 2019.

The Applicant’s Application in an Appeal filed on 15 March 2019 be 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.