Re: Baby D - [2011] FamCA 14

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: BABY D

[2011] FamCA 14

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

APPLICANT:

The Parents

RESPONDENT:

A Hospital

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

AMICUS CURIAE:

Office of the Public Advocate

DATE DELIVERED:

13 January 2011

JUDGMENT OF:

Young J

HEARING DATE:

13 January 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr K

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms C SC

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms D

COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE:

Mr M SC

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED:

THAT the ex tempore reasons for judgment be immediately transcribed and thereafter placed upon the Court file with copies being made available to all of the parties and the Office of the Public Advocate.
THAT the costs of the listing and hearing of the proceedings this day of each of the parties and of the Office of the Public Advocate be reserved for mention at a date and time to be fixed within the next seven (7) days.

IT IS CERTIFIED

THAT pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules this matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel for the parents, Senior Counsel for the Hospital, Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and Senior Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the Office of the Public Advocate.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Parents

Applicant

And

A Hospital

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

And

Office of the Public Advocate
Amicus Curiae

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Yesterday I had before me a case involving the parents, a Hospital and Baby D. On that occasion the parents were represented by Counsel, the Hospital was represented by Senior Counsel, the Independent Children’s Lawyer by its retained Counsel who appeared to represent the interests of Baby D and the Office of the Public Advocate was granted permission by the Court without objection from the parties to appear on an amicus curiae basis. Ms N, a senior manager of the … Region, of the Office of Public Advocate who was not a legally qualified person appeared and wholly participated in the proceedings.
At the end of the all day hearing I reserved both my orders and reasons for judgment. I indicated to all present that I would deliver orders or declarations as soon as practicable, separate from the reasons for judgment, and would thereafter deliver detailed reasons for judgment. The matter has been mentioned at Court this day arising out of a letter received today by the Registry Manager from the Office of the Public Advocate. That letter requested an urgent mention of the matter. The letter was written on the basis of an existing guideline and protocol, No. 9 of 2004 (“the protocol”), applicable to the Victorian and Queensland Registries of the Family Court. That protocol was, following upon an earlier Practice Direction of the Court, enacted by its parties and subject to all of the more recent amendments…

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 Re: Baby D

Details

AGLC: Re: Baby D [2011] FamCA 14
Case: [2011] FamCA 14
Decision Date: 13 January 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Re: Baby D*, heard by Young J, the proceedings concerned a dispute involving the parents of Baby D, the Hospital, and the Office of the Public Advocate. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved significant legal representation for all parties, including Senior Counsel for the Hospital and amicus curiae for the Office of the Public Advocate.

The court was required to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the transcription and dissemination of the ex tempore reasons for judgment. Furthermore, the court needed to address the costs associated with the listing and hearing of the proceedings, reserving these for future determination. The court also certified that the matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel for the parents, Senior Counsel for the Hospital, counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and Senior Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the Office of the Public Advocate, pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules.

Young J ordered that the ex tempore reasons for judgment be immediately transcribed and placed on the Court file, with copies to be provided to all parties and the Office of the Public Advocate. The costs of the proceedings were reserved for mention within seven days. The court's reasoning for these orders is not elaborated upon in the provided text, beyond the certification of the necessity of counsel's attendance.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED:

THAT the ex tempore reasons for judgment be immediately transcribed and thereafter placed upon the Court file with copies being made available to all of the parties and the Office of the Public Advocate.

THAT the costs of the listing and hearing of the proceedings this day of each of the parties and of the Office of the Public Advocate be reserved for mention at a date and time to be fixed within the next seven (7) days.

IT IS CERTIFIED

THAT pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules this matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel for the parents, Senior Counsel for the Hospital, Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and Senior Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the Office of the Public Advocate.

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.