FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| QUICKLEY & PELISSIER | [2016] FamCAFC 124 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the trial judge’s findings were open to him on the evidence – Where the trial judge was entitled to listen to as much of the recordings relied on by the appellant as he considered necessary – Where the trial judge’s reasons amply demonstrated the pathway leading to his decision – Where the trial judge properly considered and dispelled the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Where there is no error by the trial judge in his approach to the allocation of parental responsibility – Where the trial judge was not obliged to consider equal time – Where the trial judge clearly set out the parenting orders sought by the appellant and was not misled by counsel for the respondent’s final submissions – Where the trial judge was correct in not permitting objections by the appellant during the closing address of the mother’s counsel – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the trial judge clearly identified the existing property interests of the parties – Where the care of a child is a discrete factor to be considered separate from the payment of child support pursuant to s 75(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the trial judge had a duty to end the financial relations between the parties and did so in the orders he made – Where it was not open to the appellant to raise a proposal on appeal that was not raised before the trial judge – Where the trial judge made no error in his assessment of liabilities in circumstances where no evidence was led about them despite there being ample opportunity for the parties to do so – Where there was no error by the trial judge in failing to add back the legal expenses of the parties when neither party raised this issue at trial – Where the trial judge was entitled to make an assessment of the appellant on the basis of how he conducted himself at trial – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – BIAS – Where the appellant asserted that the trial judge’s reasons for judgment demonstrated bias – Where there was a lack of specificity in relation to this complaint – Appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the respondent sought an order for indemnity costs due to the conduct of the appellant and lack of merit in the appeal – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the appellant’s summary of argument and list of authorities were highly confusing – Where there were no exceptional circumstances to justify indemnity costs – Order for costs on a party/party basis. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC, s 69ZN, s 69ZQ, s 75(2), s 79, s 81, s 117 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 1.04, r 1.07, r 22.22 |
| Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 |
Continue reading Quickley & Pelissier
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Quickley & Pelissier [2016] FamCAFC 124
- Case
- [2016] FamCAFC 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and that he properly considered and dismissed the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to listen to as much of the recordings relied on by the appellant as he considered necessary, and his reasons amply demonstrated the pathway leading to his decision. The court further found that the trial judge clearly identified the existing property interests of the parties and that the care of a child is a discrete factor to be considered separate from the payment of child support. The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to consider equal time and that he was correct in not permitting objections by the appellant during the closing address of the mother’s counsel. The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of liabilities or in his failure to add back the legal expenses of the parties. The court also held that there was a lack of specificity in relation to the appellant’s complaint of bias, and therefore dismissed the appeal on this ground as well.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed on a party/party basis. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records. The court held that the appeal was wholly unsuccessful and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify indemnity costs. The respondent sought an order for indemnity costs due to the conduct of the appellant and the lack of merit in the appeal. However, the court found that the appellant’s summary of argument and list of authorities were highly confusing, and therefore, did not justify indemnity costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be dismissed.
2.
The appellant father pay the respondent mother’s costs as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed on a party/party basis.
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.