Re Fleetwood - [2012] QSC 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re: Fleetwood [2012] QSC 325

PARTIES:

IN THE MATTER of the Status of Children Act 1978 (Section 10)
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application by Charles Henry William Fleetwood
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5064 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2012 and 26 September 2012

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

I declare that Leopold Pitt, also known as Leo Pitt, also known as Lionel Sydney Pitt, was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE LEGISLATION – LEGITIMATION – DECLARATION OF LEGITIMATION – where applicant seeks declaration that a person was the father of his mother under s 10 Status of Children Act 1978 – whether applicant has a “proper interest in the result” – whether all affected persons have had opportunity to make representations to the Court – whether declaration should be made

Re Bournes & Johnson [2002] QSC 457, considered
Re Pellitteri [1991] 1 Qd R 154, applied

COUNSEL:

CHW Fleetwood (in person) for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

CHW Fleetwood (in person) for the applicant

The applicant seeks a declaration under s 10 of the Status of Children Act 1978 (‘the Act’) that Leopold Pitt (deceased), also known as Leo Pitt and Lionel Sydney Pitt, was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson (‘the Deceased’).

The applicant is a son of the Deceased, who was born on 19 August 1906 and died on 1 March 2003. Her father’s name is not recorded on either her birth certificate or her death certificate.

The applicant has previously engaged in correspondence with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and was informed that “the Registrar-General is not able to establish without reasonable doubt that the documentation provided identifies the biological father of Grace Muriel Finlayson”.

Section 10 of the Act relevantly provides:

“10 Declaration of parentage
(1) A person who –
(a) alleges that any named person is the parent of her child; or
(b) alleges that the relationship of parent and child exists between the person and another named person; or
(c) having a proper interest in the result, wishes to have determined the question whether the relationship of parent and child exists between 2 named persons;

may apply to the Supreme Court for a declaration of parentage and the Supreme Court may, if it is proved to its satisfaction that the relationship exists, make a declaration whether the parent or the child or both of them are living or dead.
…
(4) The Court shall not make or revoke a declaration under this section unless the Court is satisfied that, so far as is reasonably practicable, all persons whose interests are or may be affected by the declaration or revocation are represented before or have been given the opportunity of making representations to the Court upon the subject matter of the proceedings.”

There are two preliminary issues…

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 Fleetwood

Details

AGLC: Re: Fleetwood [2012] QSC 325
Case: [2012] QSC 325
Decision Date: 24 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Re Fleetwood involved an application for a declaration of legitimation under the Status of Children Act 1978. The applicant sought a declaration that Leopold Pitt, also known as Leo Pitt or Lionel Sydney Pitt, was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson, who was the applicant's mother. The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant had a proper interest in the result of the application and whether all affected parties had an opportunity to make representations to the Court before the declaration was made.

The legal issues the Court had to decide included the interpretation of "proper interest" as it pertains to the applicant's standing to bring the legitimation application, and the necessity for all affected parties to have made representations to the Court. The Court needed to determine if the applicant's interest was sufficient to warrant the declaration and if procedural fairness had been upheld by allowing all relevant parties to be heard. Additionally, the Court had to consider the broader implications of the declaration on family relationships and the welfare of the applicant.

The Court found that the applicant had a proper interest in the outcome of the application, as the declaration would affect his legal status and familial relationships. The Court also determined that all affected parties had been given the opportunity to make representations, thus satisfying the procedural fairness requirement. The Court concluded that the declaration should be made in favour of the applicant, recognising Leopold Pitt as the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson. Consequently, the Court declared that Leopold Pitt was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson, thereby legitimating the applicant under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

I declare that Leopold Pitt, also known as Leo Pitt, also known as Lionel Sydney Pitt, was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson.

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.

CITATION:	Re: Fleetwood [2012] QSC 325
PARTIES:	*IN THE MATTER of the Status of Children Act* 1978 (Section 10) and IN THE MATTER of an Application by Charles Henry William Fleetwood** (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5064 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 June 2012 and 26 September 2012
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	I declare that Leopold Pitt, also known as Leo Pitt, also known as Lionel Sydney Pitt, was the father of Grace Muriel Finlayson.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE LEGISLATION – LEGITIMATION – DECLARATION OF LEGITIMATION – where applicant seeks declaration that a person was the father of his mother under s 10 Status of Children Act 1978 – whether applicant has a “proper interest in the result” – whether all affected persons have had opportunity to make representations to the Court – whether declaration should be made Re Bournes & Johnson [2002] QSC 457, considered Re Pellitteri [1991] 1 Qd R 154, applied
COUNSEL:	CHW Fleetwood (in person) for the applicant
SOLICITORS:	CHW Fleetwood (in person) for the applicant