POULIN & POULIN - [2021] FCCA 580

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

POULIN & POULIN

[2021] FCCA 580

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property proceedings – proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – Orders made.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.39

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.8.02

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Applicant:

MR POULIN

Respondent:

MS POULIN

File Number:

PAC 1624 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

19 March 2021

Date of Last Submission:

19 March 2021

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

19 March 2021

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Macintosh - Mason Parkes Lawyers
Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Mr Fernie - Adams & Partners Lawyers

ORDERS

These parenting and property proceedings are transferred to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia, with the matter to be mentioned on 13 May 2021 at 10:15am.
Leave to the parties and Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect all documents produced under subpoena.

NOTATION:

A.The Court will shortly provide its Reasons as to why the proceedings have been transferred.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Poulin & Poulin is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 1624 of 2018

MR POULIN

Applicant

And

MS POULIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s Order of today that these parenting and property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.
The subject children are a girl, X, aged 6 years, and a boy, Y, aged 11 years.
The Wife and Mother is presently legally represented. The Husband and Father is presently without legal representation. There is an ICL.
The Court has previously conducted interim hearings in relation to parenting; for example on about 22 September 2020 when the Court ordered that the children’s time with the Father be supervised.
In October 2020, the Court made directions for the filing of trial related material in both parenting and property and the return date was today. The Husband/Father had not complied with the Court’s directions, whereas the Wife/Mother had so complied. The Husband/Father submitted to the Court that, for various reasons, he had not so complied. The Husband/Father submitted to the Court that he continues to seek property and parenting orders which are clearly, and substantially, in conflict with the Wife/Mother’s proposed property and parenting orders. It became apparent today that, in all the circumstances, the appointment of an undefended hearing as sought by the Wife/Mother would be inappropriate, in circumstances where the Husband/Father continued to seek Orders in conflict with the Wife/Mother’s proposed orders, and where he would likely rectify his previous non-compliance with the Court’s trial directions.
By reference to the Wife/Mother’s recently filed Case Outline (filed 18 March 2021), and her filed trial material, together with reference to the Husband/Father’s material filed to date in the proceedings, it…

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 POULIN & POULIN

Details

AGLC: POULIN & POULIN [2021] FCCA 580
Case: [2021] FCCA 580
Decision Date: 19 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Poulin & Poulin*, the proceedings involved parenting and property matters between the parties, which were ultimately transferred to the Family Court of Australia. Judge Newbrun presided over the matter.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate forum for the parenting and property proceedings. The court was required to determine whether to transfer these proceedings to the Family Court of Australia.

The court ordered the transfer of the parenting and property proceedings to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia, with a mention date set for 13 May 2021. Additionally, leave was granted to the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect all documents produced under subpoena. The court indicated that it would shortly provide its reasons for the transfer.

Orders

Orders of the court

These parenting and property proceedings are transferred to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia, with the matter to be mentioned on 13 May 2021 at 10:15am.

Leave to the parties and Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect all documents produced under subpoena.

NOTATION:

A. The Court will shortly provide its Reasons as to why the proceedings have been transferred.

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.