NESTOR & HADEN - [2020] FamCAFC 287

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NESTOR & HADEN

[2020] FamCAFC 287

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 threshold issue – Where the primary judge dismissed the appellant mother’s application to re-open proceedings – Exposure to further litigation – Best interests of the child – Weight challenges – Reasons given in short form pursuant to s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Findings open on the evidence – Conclusion drawn by the primary judge not plainly wrong – Appeal dismissed – Mother to pay the respondent father’s costs of the appeal.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 65DAC, 69ZQ, 94(2A), 117

Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Miller & Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383; [2008] FamCAFC 150
Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725; [1978] FamCA 84

APPELLANT:

Ms Nestor

RESPONDENT:

Mr Haden

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2985

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

19 November 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney (via video link)

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace J

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

24 March 2020

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2020] FCCA 638

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Sansom SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Abrams Turner Whelan Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Cummings SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Barkus Doolan Family Lawyers

Orders

The appeal against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 24 March 2020 is dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $15,830.99 within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of these orders.

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 Nestor & Haden 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EAA 48 of 2020
File Number: SYC 2985 of 2012

Ms Nestor

Appellant

And

Mr Haden

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 24 March 2020 a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a parenting application brought by Ms Nestor (“the mother”) in proceedings between her and Mr Haden (“the father”). The proceedings relate to the parties’ two children B born in 2007 and C born in 2009 (“the children”).
The mother’s application for parenting orders was opposed by the father, who relied on the rule in Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725, contending that it was…

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 NESTOR & HADEN

Details

AGLC: NESTOR & HADEN [2020] FamCAFC 287
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 287
Decision Date: 19 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nestor & Haden was an appeal before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant sought to overturn an earlier decision made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute was primarily about the interpretation and application of a statutory provision within the context of a particular legal proceeding. The court had to decide on the correctness of the lower court's interpretation and the subsequent orders that were made based on that interpretation.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court judge had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provision. The appellant argued that the lower court had misconstrued the law, leading to unjust outcomes. The court had to examine the statutory language, relevant case law, and the factual context of the case to determine if the lower court's interpretation was sound. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether any errors in interpretation warranted a reversal of the orders made by the lower court.

After thorough examination, the Full Court found that the interpretation and application of the statutory provision by the judge of the Federal Circuit Court were correct. The court held that the lower court had appropriately applied the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the lower court were upheld. The Full Court also ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs associated with the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 24 March 2020 is dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in the sum of $15,830.99 within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of these orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.