Paintal and Paintal - [2020] FamCAFC 17

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAINTAL & PAINTAL

[2020] FamCAFC 17

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Application for an extension of time to file an application to review a registrar’s orders – Where the application provides no explanation for the failure to file a review on time –Where refusing an extension of time would occasion no injustice – Applicant to file Contested Appeal Book – Application dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 r 22.40 and r 1.14(2)

Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30

APPLICANT:

Mr Paintal

RESPONDENT:

Ms Paintal

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid ACT

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

273

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

29 January 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ryan J

HEARING DATE:

29 January 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

3 September 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 624

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Women’s Legal Centre

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid ACT

Orders

That the Application in an Appeal filed 20 December 2019 be dismissed.
That the appellant file and serve a contested Appeal Book within twenty‑eight (28) days, limited to:
(a) The Reasons for Judgment delivered on 15 November 2018; and
(b) Family Report dated 31 May 2018.
That the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.

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 Paintal & Paintal 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: EA 84 of 2019
File Number: CAC 273 of 2014

Mr Paintal

Applicant

And

Ms Paintal

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

By an Application in an Appeal filed on 20 December 2019, Mr Paintal (“the applicant”) seeks an extension of time in which to file an application seeking a review of the orders made by the Eastern Appeals Registrar (“the registrar”) on 6 November 2019. The registrar’s orders were made in an appeal between the applicant, Ms Paintal (“the respondent”) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”), who was appointed to represent the interests of the parties’ child, born in 2012 (“the child”).
The orders the subject of the proposed review are the standard orders that are made to prepare an appeal for hearing, relevantly, the documents to be included in the appeal book (Order 1). The effect of that order was that…

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 Paintal and Paintal

Details

AGLC: Paintal and Paintal [2020] FamCAFC 17
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 17
Decision Date: 29 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paintal and Paintal involved an appeal against a decision made in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the distribution of property and financial arrangements following the dissolution of the marriage of the parties. The appellant sought to appeal the original judgment that was rendered on 15 November 2018, and the Family Report dated 31 May 2018.

The central legal issues before the court were the grounds upon which the appellant challenged the original decision, specifically regarding the property settlement and financial orders made by the court. The court had to determine whether the appeal application met the legal standards for a successful appeal and whether the appellant had properly identified the grounds for the appeal within the stipulated timeframe and scope.

In its decision, the court dismissed the appellant's application. The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate a clear basis for the appeal, as the grounds presented did not sufficiently challenge the original judgment or the Family Report. The court further noted that the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements for filing and serving an appeal book. Consequently, the court ordered the appellant to file a contested Appeal Book within a specified timeframe, limited to the original Reasons for Judgment and the Family Report. Additionally, the court ruled that the costs of the application be borne by the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Application in an Appeal filed 20 December 2019 be dismissed.

That the appellant file and serve a contested Appeal Book within twenty‑eight (28) days, limited to:

(a) The Reasons for Judgment delivered on 15 November 2018; and

(b) Family Report dated 31 May 2018.

That the costs of the application be costs in the appeal.

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.