NAILON & BOWKETT

[2018] FamCAFC 103

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAILON & BOWKETT [2018] FamCAFC 103

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – where the mother filed an application to adduce further evidence – where the father opposed that application – where the application was heard in conjunction with the substantive appeal – where the further evidence did not meet any of the criteria for admission of further evidence on appeal by reference to the principles espoused by the High Court – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – where the mother contended the trial judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the child’s views and to the recommendations of the family report writer – where the trial judge made a finding that the child’s views were manipulated by the mother – where the trial judge was not bound by any opinion or recommendation of the expert – where the trial judge plainly took the child’s views into account in determining whether the child should relocate to South Australia – where the trial judge’s orders were consistent with the mother’s proposal expressed during her closing submissions at trial as to the time the child should spend with the father – where such orders were a legitimate exercise of the trial judge’s discretion – where the mother asserted she had suffered procedural unfairness, that the trial judge was unreasonable and biased and the decision made was plainly unreasonable – where nothing to which the mother directed attention on appeal established such assertions or demonstrated error on the part of the trial judge – appeal dismissed – no order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 93A(2)

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Simmons and Anor & Kingley (2014) FLC 93-581; [2014] FamCAFC 47

APPELLANT: Ms Nailon

RESPONDENT: Mr Bowkett

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3934 of 2013

APPEAL NUMBER: NOA 3 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 30 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 30 May 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 11 December 2017

LOWER COURT MNC: [2017] FCCA 3333

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the mother have leave to amend her Notice of Appeal to substitute the grounds of appeal stated in the Notice of Appeal with the grounds of appeal stated in her Summary of Argument.

2. That the mother’s Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence on appeal filed on 29 May 2018 be dismissed.

3. That the appeal against the orders made by Judge Jarrett on 11 December 2017 be dismissed.

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 Nailon & Bowkett has been…