Re: Eddie - [2017] FamCA 822

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: EDDIE

[2017] FamCA 822

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Medical Procedures – Where the applicant is the mother of the child and seeks a declaration that the child is competent to consent to the administration of stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria or in the alternative the court make an order authorising the administration of that treatment – Where orders are sought to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings – Where an order is made dispensing the rule requiring service upon the prescribed child welfare authority – Where a finding is made that the child is Gillick competent to consent to stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria – Where orders relating to confidentiality are made – Where the application is otherwise adjourned to await the outcome of the Full Court’s decision in Re Kelvin.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Re: Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547
Re: Jason [2016] FamCA 772
Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218

APPLICANT:

The Mother

RESPONDENT:

The Father

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

9 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Justice Watts

HEARING DATE:

9 October 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of Solicitors have been suppressed

Finding

The court finds that the child, Eddie born in 2002 is Gillick competent to consent to stage 2 medical treatment for gender dysphoria as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 2015 (DSM-5).

Orders and Notation

The requirement of Rule 4.10 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), that the Initiating Application filed 29 September 2017 and other documents be served on the prescribed child welfare authority, be dispensed with.
These proceedings are adjourned to await the outcome of the Full Court’s decision in the case stated from Re Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78.
I note that I will conclude this matter by making an order in chambers once the outcome of the Full Court’s deliberations in Re Kelvin are known.
The name of the child, Eddie born … 2002, the child’s family members and their occupations, the child’s medical practitioners, this court’s file number, the State or Territory of Australia in which these proceedings were initiated and any other fact or matter that might identify the child shall not be published in any way.
Only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders shall be released by the court to non-parties without further contrary order of a Judge.
No person shall be permitted to search the court file in this matter without first obtaining the leave of a Judge.
The applicants be at liberty to provide a copy of the un-anonymised finding and orders and un-anonymised reasons for judgment to all persons involved with Eddie’s treatment.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED

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: Eddie

Details

AGLC: Re: Eddie [2017] FamCA 822
Case: [2017] FamCA 822
Decision Date: 9 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Re: Eddie, sought a declaration that certain property was held on trust for him. The respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, contended that the property was beneficially owned by a company, Eddie Pty Ltd, and therefore subject to tax. The matter came before Watts J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had successfully demonstrated that the property was held by the respondent on trust for the applicant, or whether the property was beneficially owned by Eddie Pty Ltd. This required the court to consider the nature of the alleged trust and the evidence presented to establish its existence and terms.

Watts J found that the applicant had failed to establish the requisite elements of a trust. His Honour observed that the evidence did not demonstrate an intention by the alleged trustee to create a trust, nor did it clearly identify the trust property or the beneficiaries. Consequently, the court concluded that the property was beneficially owned by Eddie Pty Ltd.

The application for a declaration of trust was dismissed.

Orders