FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MINK & LAMB | [2008] FamCAFC 78 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – With whom a child spends time – Father sought additional time with children amounting to four nights per fortnight – Father appealed on the basis that the reasons provided were inadequate and the chain of reasoning and weight attributed to s60CC considerations was incapable of discernment – Appeal dismissed FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Appellant to pay respondents costs |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 |
| Aktibolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 212 CLR 411 |
| APPELLANT: | MR MINK |
| RESPONDENT: | MS LAMB |
| FILE NUMBER: | NCF | 570 | of | 2003 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | NA | 46 | of | 2007 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 06 June 2008 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Warnick, May & Carmody JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 9 November 2007 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 29 June 2007 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2007] FamCA 715 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Laurie |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Piper Craig Henry Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Priestley |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Susan Green Solicitors |
Orders
That the appeal be dismissed.
That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Mink & Lamb is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
Appeal Number: NA 46 of 2007
File Number: NCF 570 of 2003
| MR MINK |
Appellant
And
| MS LAMB |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WARNICK J
I have read the reasons for judgment of May and Carmody JJ. I agree with the result and all orders proposed and the essential conclusion that, in the particular circumstances in which the case presented to his Honour, set out in their Honour's judgment, Bell J's reasons are adequate. I agree also that there is no merit in the other grounds. I agree with the reason for the costs order.
may & carmody jj
Introduction
The question posed by this appeal, is whether the reasons provided by the trial judge, Bell J were sufficient. He refused the father’s application that the children spend four nights a fortnight rather than one. The order, in effect provided that the father spend alternate Saturday nights with his 11-year-old daughter B and son P aged 10.
On 25 August 2004 final parenting orders were made by Moore J for the children to spend time with the father…
Continue reading Mink & Lamb
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mink & Lamb [2008] FamCAFC 78
- Case
- [2008] FamCAFC 78
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge's reasons were sufficient and if the weight given to the statutory considerations was appropriately balanced. The court needed to assess whether the appeal was based on a discernible error in the primary judge's reasoning or if it was a case of mere disagreement with the outcome. The father contended that the reasons provided did not sufficiently explain why the primary judge had concluded that the existing arrangements were in the children's best interests. The court was required to determine if the appeal disclosed a material error of law or fact that warranted the intervention of the appellate court.
The court found that the primary judge had adequately addressed the statutory considerations and provided a clear rationale for the decision. The reasons were detailed and demonstrated an understanding of the statutory framework and the specific circumstances of the case. The appellate court held that the father's appeal was based on a disagreement with the outcome rather than any discernible error in the reasoning process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the primary judge was upheld. Additionally, the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the appeal be dismissed.
2.
That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
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.