Panno & Panno - [2018] FamCAFC 195

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PANNO & PANNO

[2018] FamCAFC 195

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING – VACCINATION – Where it has not been demonstrated that the parties, and in particular the appellant, have not been accorded procedural fairness or a fair trial by a failure to strictly apply r 25B.04 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – Where on the evidence before the trial judge there is no doubt that the appellant contravened the order and thus, there is no error in the statement made by the trial judge in that regard – Where the trial judge erred in one aspect of the reasons given for refusing to set aside the consent orders, but there was a clear basis outside that error for the trial judge to refuse to set aside the order and thus, the error cannot be a reason for allowing the appeal – Where a trial judge does not commit an appealable error per se by failing to specifically refer to the legislative pathway or by failing to specifically recite the sections of the Act – Where it can be seen from the reasons for judgment that the trial judge has adequately considered the legislative provisions relevant to the decision to be made – Where the reasons of the trial judge were adequate – Where there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondent has not incurred any legal costs or disbursements in responding to the appeal – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 70NBA, Div 12A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 1.06, 25B.04

Bennett & Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191
Caballes & Tallant (2014) FLC 93-596
Cox & Pedrana (2013) FLC 93-537
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Oswald & Karrington (2016) FLC 93-726
Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072
Sahari & Sahari (1976) FLC 90-086
SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582
Wen & Thom [2010] FamCAFC 81

APPELLANT:

Ms Panno

RESPONDENT:

Mr Panno

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

2247

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

12 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Strickland J

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

29 November 2017

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2017] FCCA 3005

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:	Dr R Smith
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:	Madison Branson Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT

In person

Orders

The appeal be 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 Panno & Panno has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of…

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 Panno & Panno

Details

AGLC: Panno & Panno [2018] FamCAFC 195
Case: [2018] FamCAFC 195
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Panno & Panno involved an appeal against a decision made by the Federal Circuit Court regarding parenting arrangements, specifically focusing on a contravention related to vaccination. The appellant, who was a party to the original proceedings, contested the trial judge’s decision, arguing several grounds for dissatisfaction with the outcome. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing these contentions to determine whether there were any valid grounds for appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had been denied procedural fairness or a fair trial, whether the trial judge correctly identified a contravention of the parenting order, and whether the trial judge adequately considered the relevant legislative provisions. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge’s failure to explicitly reference certain sections of the Act or the legislative pathway amounted to an appealable error.

The court found that while there was no procedural unfairness or denial of a fair trial, the appellant indeed contravened the parenting order concerning vaccination. The trial judge’s identification of this contravention was accurate and, therefore, not an error. Furthermore, the court concluded that the trial judge's reasons for judgment sufficiently reflected an understanding of the relevant legislative provisions, despite not explicitly mentioning them. Consequently, the trial judge's decision was upheld as there was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made since the respondent did not incur any legal costs or disbursements in responding to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be 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.