Pannett and Crain (No. 2) - [2018] FamCAFC 141

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PANNETT & CRAIN (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCAFC 141

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where this is the applicant’s second application for an extension of time in which to file his Notice of Appeal – Explanation for the delay – Merits of the proposed appeal – Application dismissed – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(4)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.03
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) s 57

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2016) 259 CLR 662; [2017] HCA 8
De Winter and De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30
Gillard & Gillard [2015] FamCAFC 169
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63
Pannett & Crain [2018] FamCAFC 99
R and R: Children’s Wishes (2000) FLC 93-000; [2000] FamCA 43

APPLICANT:

Mr Pannett

RESPONDENT:

Ms Crain

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Kathryn Renshall Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5431

2015

APPEAL NUMBER:

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

3 August 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

26 July 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

28 March 2018

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2018] FCCA 1341

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Hernandez solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Forshaw Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Renshall solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Kathryn Renshall Lawyers

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 June 2018 is dismissed.
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 Pannett & Crain (No. 2) 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 62 of 2018
File Number: PAC 5431 of 2015

Mr Pannett

Applicant

And

Ms Crain

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By an Application in an Appeal filed on 13 June 2018, Mr Pannett (“the applicant”), seeks an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal against parenting orders made by Judge Harman on 28 March 2018.
In those proceedings, the primary judge ordered that the parties’ child, who was born in 2010, was to live with her mother, Ms Crain (“the respondent”), who was to have sole parental responsibility for her. Pursuant to Order 4, the child was to spend no time and have no communication…

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 Pannett and Crain (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Pannett and Crain (No. 2) [2018] FamCAFC 141
Case: [2018] FamCAFC 141
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pannett and Crain (No. 2) involved the parties, Pannett and Crain, and revolved around an appeal concerning a previous judgment. The legal dispute was brought before the court to review and potentially overturn or affirm the earlier decision. The case was heard in an Australian court, which has jurisdiction over such matters.

The central legal issues that the court was tasked with deciding pertained to the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles in the context of the facts as presented. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the earlier judgment was correct in its application of the law and whether there were any errors that warranted a different outcome. The court had to carefully consider the evidence and arguments put forward by both parties, ensuring that the legal standards were appropriately applied.

The court, after thorough deliberation, found that the earlier judgment was correct and that there were no errors in the application of the law. The reasoning of the court was grounded in a detailed analysis of the legal principles and the evidence provided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the earlier decision was upheld. The court also noted that no order would be made regarding costs, leaving the matter of financial responsibility between the parties as previously determined.

In summary, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the earlier judgment, with no order as to costs. The decision was subject to formal entry into the court's records, ensuring that the outcome is properly documented and enforceable.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 13 June 2018 is dismissed.

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.