FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court – where there were no reasons for the transfer to the Family Court of Australia – where the parties did not seek to have the matter heard in the Family Court of Australia
Pursuant to s 33B(1) and s 33B(2)(b) of the Family Law Act, these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court to be listed on a date fixed by that court.
AND IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.This matter was listed for trial to commence in Townsville on 23 March 2017 with an estimated hearing time of 2 days.
B.The trial did not then proceed, but rather was transferred to this Court.
C.It is said that the trial cannot proceed before Judge Coker.
D.It is requested that the Federal Circuit Court arrange for the trial to commence as promptly as may be accommodated.
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 Morris & Rosetti 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 CAIRNS
FILE NUMBER: TVC700/2015
Mr Morris
Applicant
And
Ms Rosetti
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
On 16 December 2016, Judge Baumann made an order listing this matter for trial to commence at 10:00am on 23 March 2017. In due course it was listed for hearing before another Federal Circuit Court Judge, who was sitting on circuit in Townsville from interstate. However on 22 March 2017, the day before the trial was due to commence, that visiting judge made an order pursuant to s 39(1) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act transferring all outstanding application to the Family Court of Australia in Townsville for a hearing on…
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 Morris & Rosetti
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249
Case
[2017] FamCA 249
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The proceedings involved Morris & Rosetti, with the specific nature of their dispute and the court of origin not detailed in the provided text. However, the matter was before Tree J of the Family Court of Australia, who was considering the transfer of the proceedings. The case was initially listed for trial in Townsville on 23 March 2017, with an estimated duration of two days, but this trial did not proceed and the matter was subsequently transferred to the Family Court.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. This determination was informed by the fact that the trial could not proceed before a particular judge, Judge Coker, and a request was made for the Federal Circuit Court to arrange for the trial to commence as promptly as possible.
Tree J applied sections 33B(1) and 33B(2)(b) of the *Family Law Act*. These provisions empower the Family Court to transfer proceedings to the Federal Circuit Court. The court's reasoning appears to have been influenced by the practical difficulties in proceeding with the trial in its current forum, specifically the inability to have the matter heard by Judge Coker, and the desire for a prompt resolution.
Consequently, the court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court, to be listed on a date fixed by that court. The court also noted the history of the matter, including the original trial listing and the subsequent transfer, and acknowledged the request for expedited commencement of the trial in the Federal Circuit Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Pursuant to s 33B(1) and s 33B(2)(b) of the Family Law Act, these proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court to be listed on a date fixed by that court.
AND IT IS NOTED THAT:
A. This matter was listed for trial to commence in Townsville on 23 March 2017 with an estimated hearing time of 2 days.
B. The trial did not then proceed, but rather was transferred to this Court.
C. It is said that the trial cannot proceed before Judge Coker.
D. It is requested that the Federal Circuit Court arrange for the trial to commence as promptly as may be accommodated.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.