NORBURN & NORBURN - [2018] FamCA 704

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORBURN & NORBURN

[2018] FamCA 704

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for expedited hearing – application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

APPLICANT:

Ms Norburn

RESPONDENT:

Mr Norburn

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

670

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

12 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Johns J

HEARING DATE:

Written Submissions in Chambers

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Sautelle White Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT:

In Person

Orders

The wife’s application for an expedited final hearing pursuant to r 12.10A(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) 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 Norburn & Norburn 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: CAC 670 of 2017

Ms Norburn

Applicant

And

Mr Norburn

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The wife, who is the applicant in the proceedings, seeks the expedition of the final hearing pursuant to r 12.10A(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”).
On 3 August 2018 Registrar Jenkins made the following orders:
1.These proceedings are added to the list of cases awaiting allocation to a judicial docket with priority from 3 August 2018.
2.That all extant applications of all parties are adjourned to a date to be fixed before the Honourable Justice Johns to determine whether to expedite the final hearing.
3.That by 4 pm on 17 August 2018, the party seeking the expedited hearing, file and serve a summary of argument in bullet point form, setting out the matters upon which the determination is to be made.
4.That within 7 days of receipt of the applicant’s summary of argument, the responding party, file and serve a document indicating his or her support of or objection to the application for expedition.
5.That all parties file the documents required by these orders by email to the Associate to the Honourable Justice Johns at …
6.That unless Her Honour determines otherwise, the determination of the issue of priority be heard and finalised in chambers.
…
On 21 August 2018 the wife filed her application seeking expedition of the proceedings.
The husband filed his response to the wife’s application on 31 August 2018.
These are my Reasons for Judgment in respect of the wife’s application.

Background

The wife is aged 44. The husband is aged 49. They commenced cohabitation in December 2001, married in 2003 and separated in September 2016.
There are three children of the marriage, X aged 14,…

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 NORBURN & NORBURN

Details

AGLC: NORBURN & NORBURN [2018] FamCA 704
Case: [2018] FamCA 704
Decision Date: 12 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Norburn & Norburn*, the wife sought an expedited final hearing pursuant to rule 12.10A(1) of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). The application was heard by Johns J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife had satisfied the criteria for an expedited final hearing under the relevant Family Law Rule. This rule typically requires demonstrating exceptional circumstances or urgency that would justify deviating from the standard court process.

Johns J dismissed the wife's application. While the specific reasons for dismissal are not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court was not satisfied that the threshold for an expedited hearing had been met. The court applied the provisions of rule 12.10A(1) of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth) in reaching its decision.

The wife's application for an expedited final hearing was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife’s application for an expedited final hearing pursuant to r 12.10A(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) be dismissed.

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.