Pedrana and Pedrana - [2012] FamCA 347

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PEDRANA & PEDRANA

[2012] FamCA 347

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a stated case to the Full Court – delay and effect on the respondent considered – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Chippendale Printing Co Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1995) 17 ACSR 328
Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280
In the marriage of CE Daff (deceased) [1982] 9 FamLR 546
In the marriage of Mullane (1980) 43 FLR 201
Kwon and Lee (2006) FLC 93-287

APPLICANT:

Mr Pedrana

RESPONDENT:

Ms Pedrana

INTERVENOR:

Child Support Registrar

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

6936

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

15 May 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

27 April 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Othen

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Family Law Matters

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Greg Walsh & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR:

Mr Begbiey

SOLICITOR FOR THE INTERVENOR:

Australian Government Solicitor

Orders

Orders made 27.4.2012

The father’s Application in a Case filed 15 March 2012 seeking that a case be stated to the Full Court be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pedrana & Pedrana has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6936 of 2010

Mr Pedrana

Applicant

And

Ms Pedrana

Respondent

And

Child Support Registrar

Intervenor

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 27 April 2012 I made the following order:
The father’s Application in a Case filed 15 March 2012 seeking that a case be stated to the Full Court be dismissed.
As indicated, I would provide reasons at a later time and I now do so.
On 19 December 2011 I had made orders in the following terms:
1.Pursuant to Rule 10.14(d) of the Family Court Rules, there be a hearing to determine a question of law regarding whether the legal obligation attaching to information and/or documents produced pursuant to compulsory processes in Family Court proceedings to a party to those proceedings, applies to Commonwealth offices who receive such information/documents in the performance of duties under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.
2.The Child Support Registrar file and serve written submissions on the question of law by 17 February 2012.
3.[Mr Pedrana] and [Ms Pedrana] file and serve written submission on the question of law by 9 March 2012.
4.The Child Support Registrar file and serve any written submission in reply by 16 March 2012.
5.Any written submissions are to be limited to ten pages and may be in dot point form.
6.This matter will be set down for oral submissions at 10am on 27 April 2012.
On 15 March 2012 the father filed an Application in a Case in the following terms:
“That the Judge shall state to the Full Court the question to be determined by the Court…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pedrana and Pedrana and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] FamCA 347
Decision Date: 15 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Pedrana and Pedrana*, heard by Watts J, the father sought to have a case stated to the Full Court concerning orders made on 27 April 2012. The specific nature of the dispute leading to these orders is not detailed in the provided text, but the father's application was to compel the Full Court to consider the matter.

The central legal issue before Watts J was whether the father's application to state a case to the Full Court should be granted or dismissed. This required the court to consider the criteria and circumstances under which a case can be formally stated for determination by a higher court.

Watts J dismissed the father's application. The reasoning behind this decision, and the specific legal principles applied to determine that the criteria for stating a case were not met, are not elaborated upon in the provided extract. The outcome was that the father's request to have the matter referred to the Full Court was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made 27.4.2012

The father’s Application in a Case filed 15 March 2012 seeking that a case be stated to the Full Court be dismissed.

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.