Pruchnik and Pruchnik (No. 2) - [2018] FamCA 226

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRUCHNIK & PRUCHNIK (NO. 2)

[2018] FamCA 226

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – Where the mother seeks a stay of final parenting orders that the children live with the father and spend gradually increasing time with the mother – Where the mother has appealed those orders – Where the mother has sought expedition in the Appeal –Where the children’s present circumstances are satisfactory – Where the continuation of the present parenting orders would not render the Appeal nugatory – Where it is in the best interests of the children to limit changes in their circumstances – Application for stay dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 61DA, 65DAA

Aldridge &Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 106
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 134 ALR 460
Cape & Cape [2013] FamCAFC 114
Clemett & Clemett (1981) FLC 91-013
CSN & JBN (1998) FamCA 176
Gronow & Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
Heaton & Heaton (Stay Application) [2014] FamCA 840
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Pruchnik & Pruchnik [2018] FamCA 24
Sheldon & Weir [2011] FamCA 2
Tranh & Long (No. 2) [2008] FamCAFC 194

APPLICANT:

Ms Pruchnik

RESPONDENT:

Mr Pruchnik

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Claremont Legal

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

381

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

12 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr O'Reilly

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Barkus Doolan

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Haughton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Aaron Legal Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Daniel

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Claremont Legal

Orders

The mother’s Application in a Case filed 16 February 2018 is dismissed.

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 Pruchnik & Pruchnik (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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 381 of 2015

Ms Pruchnik

Applicant

And

Mr Pruchnik

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In November and December 2017 I heard competing parenting applications in relation to the parties’ two children, B (“the son”) who is 12 and C (“the daughter”) who is nine. Judgment was delivered on 23 January 2018[1] (“the January 2018 Judgment”).
[1]Pruchnik & Pruchnik [2018] FamCA 24
Pursuant to the orders made on 23 January 2018 (“the January 2018 orders”) the children live with the father who has sole parental responsibility for them and the mother spends defined time with the children which is initially supervised.
Prior to the January 2018…

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 Pruchnik and Pruchnik (No. 2) 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: [2018] FamCA 226
Decision Date: 12 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Pruchnik and Pruchnik (No. 2)*, Hannam J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed by the mother on 16 February 2018. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, the Pruchniks, is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that it was brought before the court by the mother.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the mother's application filed on 16 February 2018. The court was required to decide whether to grant or dismiss this application.

Hannam J dismissed the mother's application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided extract. The court's final order was that the mother's application be dismissed, with the note that the precise form of this order would be subject to its formal entry into the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The mother’s Application in a Case filed 16 February 2018 is dismissed.

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.