Oakley & Millar

Case [2019] FamCAFC 12

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OAKLEY & MILLAR [2019] FamCAFC 12

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTEMPT – Where the father’s Notices of Appeal do not contain competent grounds of appeal – Where the finding of contempt was properly made pursuant to s 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where no question of general principle is raised and the reasons are given in short form pursuant to s 94(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appeals have no merit – Appeals dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PENALTY – Where the father does not raise any grounds of appeal as to the penalty imposed – Where the primary judge sentenced the father to six months imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years – Where the primary judge did not err in the penalty imposed on the father. 

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the evidence the father seeks to adduce is irrelevant to the proceedings – Where most of the evidence the father seeks to adduce was available to him at the time of the hearing – Applications dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 93A(2), 94(2A), 112AP, 112AP(1)(b), 112AP(2), 112AP(4), 112AP(6)(b)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 21.08
Bahonko v Sterjov (2008) 166 FCR 415; [2008] FCAFC 30
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67
Cluny & Skinner (No.2) [2017] FamCA 547
Ganem & Ganem (No.2) [2013] FamCA 257
In the Marriage of Ibbotson and Wincen (1994) FLC 92-496; [1994] FamCA 103
Tate & Tate (No. 3) (2003) FLC 93-138; [2003] FamCA 112
Millar & Oakley [2016] FCCA 1283
Millar & Oakley [2017] FamCA 415
Millar & Oakley (No.3) [2018] FamCA 68
Oakley & Millar [2018] FamCAFC 47
APPELLANT: Mr Oakley
RESPONDENT: Ms Millar
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Taft Lawyers
FILE NUMBER: MLC 2195 of 2016
APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 11 & SOA 12 of 2018
DATE DELIVERED: 31 January 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Alstergren CJ, Strickland & Macmillan JJ
HEARING DATE: 27 August 2018
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 30 January 2018 &
12 February 2018
LOWER COURT MNC: [2018] FamCA 68 & [2018] FamCA 122

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In person
SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ebejer & Associates Lawyers
SOLICITORS FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Taft Lawyers

Orders

  1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 August 2018 in appeal no. SOA 11 of 2018 be dismissed.

  2. The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 August 2018 in appeal no. SOA 12 of 2018 be dismissed.

  3. Appeal no. SOA 11 of 2018 be dismissed.

  4. Appeal no. SOA 12 of 2018 be dismissed.

  5. There be no order as to costs.

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 Oakley & Millar has been approved by the Chief Justice…

Continue reading Oakley & Millar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Oakley & Millar [2019] FamCAFC 12
Case
[2019] FamCAFC 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals were brought by the father against findings of contempt and the penalty imposed following an order of the Family Court of Australia. The father argued that the finding of contempt was improper and that the penalty was excessive. The appeals included applications to adduce further evidence and to amend the grounds of appeal. The mother cross-appealed, arguing that the penalty was insufficient.

The court had to determine whether the father's grounds of appeal were valid and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate. The court also had to decide whether the father could adduce further evidence and amend his grounds of appeal during the appeal process. The mother argued that the penalty imposed was too lenient.

The court found that the father's grounds of appeal were not competent, as they did not challenge the primary judge's findings or the law applied. The court also found that the penalty imposed was not excessive and that the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion. The court held that the father's application to adduce further evidence was irrelevant and that the evidence was available to him at the time of the hearing. The mother's cross-appeal was dismissed as the penalty imposed was considered appropriate.

The appeals were dismissed, and the applications to adduce further evidence and amend the grounds of appeal were also dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 August 2018 in appeal no. SOA 11 of 2018 be dismissed.

2.

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 August 2018 in appeal no. SOA 12 of 2018 be dismissed.

3.

Appeal no. SOA 11 of 2018 be dismissed.

4.

Appeal no. SOA 12 of 2018 be dismissed.

5.

There be no order as to costs.

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.