Redmond and Stolz (No 2) - [2015] FamCA 401

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REDMOND & STOLZ (NO 2)

[2015] FamCA 401

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Stay – where the father seeks a stay of Orders pending an appeal – application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Redmond

RESPONDENT:

Ms Stolz

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Patrick Dooley

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

4493

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

28 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Forrest J

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In Person

THE RESPONDENT:

In Person

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

No Appearance

Orders

That the father’s application for a stay of Order 9 of the Orders of Justice Forrest dated 19 May 2015 pending the hearing of his appeal against those Orders is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Redmond & Stolz (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 4493 of 2011

Mr Redmond

Applicant

And

Ms Stolz

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 11 May 2015, the parties in this matter came before me on a judicial duty list day upon the father’s application for a review of the Principal Registrar’s decision of 10 March 2015. The Principal Registrar had made orders permitting the mother to take their 10 year old child, E, overseas on a short holiday to a couple of countries in south-east Asia. The father’s further application to have the Independent Children’s Lawyer discharged from the case had also been dismissed by the Principal Registrar. That was also under review on that day.
Pending the determination of the review of her decision, on the father’s application, the Principal Registrar had stayed her Orders. The father then made a further application to the Court for an order that the Australian Federal Police be requested to place the child’s name on the family law watch list. Filing that application apparently enabled the father to cause the Australian Federal Police to place the child’s name on the family law watch list. That application was also listed for my determination on 11 May.
The mother, who sought orders that the father’s applications be dismissed, also sought orders for the child’s name to be removed from the family law watch list and orders to enable the child to travel with her on the planned overseas holiday between 21 June and 5 July this year. The mother also applied to the Court for an injunction pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) restraining the father from filing any applications seeking an order for the placement of the child on the family law watch list.
After hearing the submissions from the parents and the ICL on that day, I reserved my judgment.
On 19 May 2015, I delivered my Judgment and made Orders dismissing the father’s applications and permitting the mother to take the child overseas for the…

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 Redmond and Stolz (No 2) 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: [2015] FamCA 401
Decision Date: 28 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Redmond and Stolz (No 2)*, the father applied to Forrest J for a stay of an order made on 19 May 2015, pending the determination of his appeal against that order.

The sole legal issue before Forrest J was whether to grant the father's application for a stay of the existing order.

Forrest J dismissed the father's application for a stay. The reasons for this decision are not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the threshold for granting a stay pending appeal was not met.

The father's application for a stay of Order 9 of the Orders of Justice Forrest dated 19 May 2015 pending the hearing of his appeal against those Orders was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the father’s application for a stay of Order 9 of the Orders of Justice Forrest dated 19 May 2015 pending the hearing of his appeal against those Orders is dismissed.

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.