FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MEADIS & MEADIS AND ORS | [2020] FamCAFC 301 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge affirmed interim parenting orders and a costs order made by a Senior Registrar – Where the appellant father challenged that decision – Family violence perpetrated upon the mother for which the father is imprisoned – Privilege – Admissibility of redacted transcripts of the father’s telephone calls during his incarceration – Where it was open for the primary judge to admit transcripts – Adequacy of reasons – Procedural fairness – Errors of fact – Errors of law – Weight challenge as to the views of the children – No error identified – Appeal dismissed – Father to pay the mother’s costs in a fixed amount. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 126K, 134 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 18.10 Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) Sch 9A, reg 12CE |
| APPELLANT: | Mr Meadis |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Ms Meadis |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Mr G Meadis |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Ms H Meadis |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Joliman Lawyers |
| FILE NUMBER: | MLC | 11834 | of | 2016 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | SOA | 67 | of | 2020 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 27 November 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Newcastle |
| PLACE HEARD: | Melbourne (via video link) |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Aldridge, Austin & Tree JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 27 November 2020 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 16 July 2020 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2020] FamCA 543 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPELLANT: | Self-represented litigant |
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: | Mr Testart with Ms Renou |
SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: | Harris Lieberman Solicitors Pty Ltd |
| THE SECOND RESPONDENT: | Did not participate in the appeal |
| THE THIRD RESPONDENT: | Did not participate in the appeal |
| THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Joliman Lawyers (did not participate in the appeal) |
Orders made on 27 November 2020
Appeal no. SOA 67 of 2020 be dismissed.
The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $11,931.60, which sum…
Continue reading Miedis & Miedis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Miedis & Miedis [2020] FamCAFC 301
- Case
- [2020] FamCAFC 301
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that it was open to the primary judge to admit the transcripts, as the privilege did not extend to conversations made by the father while in prison. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge's reasons were adequate and did not identify any procedural unfairness, errors of fact or law. The court also found that the primary judge appropriately considered the children's views and gave them the appropriate weight.
The appeal was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $11,931.60, to be paid from the appellant's share of the trust funds held for the parties in National Australia Bank account number…96. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records. The Chief Justice approved the publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Meadis & Meadis and Ors, pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). 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).
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders made on 27 November 2020
1. Appeal no. SOA 67 of 2020 be dismissed.
2. The appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $11,931.60, which sum is to be paid from the appellant’s share of the trust funds held for the parties in National Australia Bank account number …96.
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 Meadis & Meadis and Ors 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).
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.