Naldi and Naldi

Case [2018] FCCA 2413


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALDI & NALDI [2018] FCCA 2413
Catchwords:
PARENTING – Rule in Rice & Asplund - where final parenting orders made by consent on 5 June 2008 – hearing of preliminary issue - where the Father seeks to discharge those orders – where the Court dismissed the father’s application.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 64B, 65AA, 60CC, 65D

Cases cited:

CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
Edwards & Edwards (2006) FLC 93-306
Gaul & Gaul (2000) FamCA 12
Gotch v Gotch [2009] FamCAFC 3
King v Finneran (2001) FLC 93-079
Marsden & Winch [2009] FamCAFC 152;
Miller v Harrington (2008) 39 FamLR 654
Poisat & Poisat [2014] FamCAFC 128
Reid & Lynch (2010) FLC 93-448
Rice & Asplund (1997) FLC 90-275

SCVG & KLD [2014] FamCAFC 42

Searson & Searson [2017] FamCAFC 119
SPS & PLS [2008] FAMCAFC 16; (2008) 39 FamLR 295; FLC 93-363
Watson & Watson [2018] FCCA 1791

Applicant: MR NALDI
Respondent: MS NALDI
File Number: SYC 7071 of 2017
Judgment of: Judge Harper
Hearing date: 4 April 2018
Date of Last Submission: 4 April 2018
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 31 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Cantrall
Solicitors for the Applicant: Jordan Djundja Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Longworth
Solicitors for the Respondent: Somerville Legal

ORDERS

  1. The Initiating Application filed 26 October 2017 be dismissed.

  2. The proceedings be removed from the active pending cases list.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Naldi & Naldi is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 7071 of 2017

MR NALDI

Applicant

And

MS NALDI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. These proceedings concern the child, [X], born 2003 presently 15 years of age (“[X]”). The parties also share another child, [Y], born 2000, who is presently 18 years of age (“[Y]”) (collectively referred to as “the children”).

  2. By way of Initiating Application filed 26 October 2017, the Applicant father, Mr Naldi (“the father”) seeks that final parenting orders made by consent by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 5 June 2008 (“2008 orders”) be discharged and that in their place, fresh parenting orders be made with respect to [X].

  3. By way of Response, the Respondent mother, Ms Naldi (“the mother”) sought the father’s Initiating Application be dismissed.

  4. It was common ground, between the parties, that the father’s application requires consideration of the application of the rule, as it is called, in Rice & Asplund (1997) FLC 90-275 (“Rice & Asplund”).

Background

  1. The father was born 1975 and is presently 43 years of age.

  2. The mother was born 1975 and is presently 42 years of age.

  3. The parties commenced cohabitation in 1999 and married on 2001.

  4. On 27 February 2005, the parties separated. At this time, the children were aged 5 and 1 ½ years of age respectively.

  5. On 31…

Continue reading Naldi and Naldi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Naldi and Naldi [2018] FCCA 2413
Case
[2018] FCCA 2413
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Naldi and Naldi*, heard by Judge Harper, the dispute concerned an Initiating Application filed on 26 October 2017. The specific nature of the dispute and the identities of the parties beyond their surnames are not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the Initiating Application filed by the applicant. The court was required to decide whether this application should be dismissed.

Judge Harper ordered that the Initiating Application filed on 26 October 2017 be dismissed. Consequently, the proceedings were removed from the active pending cases list.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Initiating Application filed 26 October 2017 be dismissed.

2.

The proceedings be removed from the active pending cases list.

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.