Quickley & Pelissier

In the matter of Quickley & Pelissier, the appeal was brought against a decision concerning the allocation of parental responsibility, property division, and allegations of bias in the Family Court of Australia. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, with the appellant, the father, ordered to pay the respondent, the mother’s, costs. The father challenged the trial judge’s findings regarding the allocation of parental responsibility, the division of property, and claimed that the trial judge demonstrated bias in his judgment. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence, whether he properly considered and dismissed the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and if there was any error in the financial orders made.

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.