Rader and Rader And Ors - [2019] FamCAFC 183

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RADER & RADER AND ORS

[2019] FamCAFC 183

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the father sought expedition of an appeal against orders concerning the parenting arrangement for his children – Where the parenting orders were of a drastic nature – Where the solicitor for the first respondent sought an application for the adjournment of the application for the expedition of the appeal – Where the application for an adjournment was refused – Where the father’s appeal raises substantial issues – Where it is in the best interests of the children that the issues are determined as quickly as possible – Where the application for expedition of the appeal is allowed – Where the hearing of the appeal is expedited.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

APPLICANT:

Mr Rader

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Rader

SECOND RESPONDENTS:

Ms Haines and Mr Haines

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Morton Family Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

1641

2019

APPEAL NUMBER:

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

24 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2019

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

13 September 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FCCA 2825
[2019] FCCA 2826

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Gillies SC with Ms Reid

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lander & Rogers

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Bowral Legal

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENTS:

Godden Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Morton Family Lawyers

Orders

The oral application for an adjournment by the first respondent on 10 October 2019 be dismissed.
The hearing of the appeal no. EA 99 of 2019 is expedited.
Appeal no. EA 99 of 2019 be listed for hearing on 15 November 2019.

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 Rader & Rader and Ors 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 99 of 2019
File Number: SYC 1641 of 2019

Mr Rader

Applicant

and

Ms Rader

First Respondent

and

Ms Haines and Mr Haines
Second Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application made by Mr Rader (“the father”) seeking expedition of an appeal against orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 13 September 2019.
The proceedings before the primary judge concerned the parenting arrangements for two children who are 13 and 14 years old.
As originally constituted, the proceedings were…

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 Rader and Rader And Ors 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: [2019] FamCAFC 183
Decision Date: 24 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rader and Rader And Ors involved the Federal Court of Australia, where the first respondent sought an adjournment of an oral application. The primary dispute centred on the urgency and necessity of the requested adjournment, juxtaposed against the overarching interest of judicial efficiency and fairness to the other parties involved. The first respondent's application was made on 10 October 2019, seeking to delay the proceedings to allow for additional preparation and legal strategy. This application was contested by the appellants, who argued that the adjournment would unnecessarily prolong the legal process and cause undue hardship.

The court was tasked with determining whether the reasons provided by the first respondent were sufficient to warrant an adjournment. The primary legal issues involved the principles of judicial discretion in managing court listings, the impact of potential delays on the efficiency of the court system, and the rights of all parties to a fair and timely resolution of their disputes. The court also had to consider the balance between the need for procedural fairness and the overarching public interest in the expeditious resolution of legal matters.

The court dismissed the application for an adjournment, emphasising the importance of maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. The court found that the reasons provided did not sufficiently justify the delay requested by the first respondent. Furthermore, the court noted that the other parties would be prejudiced by an unnecessary extension of the timeline. Consequently, the court expedited the hearing of the appeal and scheduled it for 15 November 2019, ensuring that the matter would be resolved in a timely manner. The orders reflect the court’s commitment to ensuring that all parties receive a fair and timely resolution of their disputes, while also upholding the efficiency of the judicial system.

Orders

Orders of the court

The oral application for an adjournment by the first respondent on 10 October 2019 be dismissed.

The hearing of the appeal no. EA 99 of 2019 is expedited.

Appeal no. EA 99 of 2019 be listed for hearing on 15 November 2019.

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.