FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Whether there is apprehension of bias – where there is no apprehension of bias – whether there was a failure to afford procedural fairness – whether a judicial officer should exclude themselves.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – communication between judicial officer and parties – where all parties were not included –where submissions were made by one party but were not shown to the other – where there were no adverse consequences for the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – whether one party was able to respond to submissions by the other party.

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
CDJ v VAJ (No 2) (1998) 197 CLR 172
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296
Helliar & Helliar (1980) FLC 90-805
Ibbotson & Wincen (1994) FLC 92-496
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Sahari & Sahari (1976) FLC 90-086
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525

APPELLANT:

Mr Redmond

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Redmond

SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 62 AND NA 97 OF 2012:

Firm Y

SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 47 AND NA 89 OF 2012:

Child Support Registrar

APPEAL NUMBERS:

NA 47 of 2012
NA 62 of 2012
NA 89 of 2012
NA 97 of 2012

FILE NUMBER:

BRC 4493 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED:

9 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

DATE HEARD:

2 May 2013

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May, Ainslie-Wallace and Kent JJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Magistrates Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

28 May 2012

10 July 2012

18 October 2012
22 November 2012

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2012] FMCAfam 431
[2012] FMCAfam 681
[2012] FMCAfam 1117
[2012] FMCAfam 1306

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Redmond in person

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Firm Y

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 62 AND NA 97 OF 2012:

Mr Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 62 AND NA 97 OF 2012:

SMH

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 47 AND NA 89 OF 2012:

Dr Brasch

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEALS NA 47 AND NA 89 OF 2012:

DLA Piper Australia

Orders

NA 62 and 97 of 2012

The application for leave to appeal in NA 62 of 2012 be granted in respect of order 3 made on 10 July 2012 by Federal Magistrate Howard (as he then was) and otherwise be refused.
Appeal NA 62 of 2012 be allowed in part.
Order 3 made on 10…

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 Redmond & Redmond

Details

AGLC: Redmond & Redmond [2013] FamCAFC 161
Case: [2013] FamCAFC 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the appellant, Mr Redmond, appeals against orders made by the Federal Magistrate in a property and parenting matter. The respondent wife is a solicitor, and Mr Redmond is also a solicitor. The wife is employed by Firm Y, a law firm which acts for her in the proceedings. In the first appeal, NA 62 of 2012, the husband appeals against orders made on 10 July 2012 by Federal Magistrate Howard and on 22 November 2012. In the second appeal, NA 97 of 2012, the husband appeals against orders made by Federal Magistrate Howard on 22 November 2012. In the third and fourth appeals, NA 47 and 89 of 2012, the husband appeals against orders made by Federal Magistrate Coates on 28 May 2012 and 18 October 2012 respectively. The appeals concern a subpoena issued by the husband to Firm Y seeking documents relating to the estate of the wife’s deceased mother, the adequacy of the wife’s disclosure in response to orders made by the Federal Magistrate, an application for contempt brought against Firm Y and the wife, and the Federal Magistrate’s costs orders against the husband. In the first appeal, the Full Court sets aside the Federal Magistrate’s order that the husband be prevented from filing further applications in the proceedings without leave. The appeal against all other orders is dismissed. In the second appeal, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed. In the third and fourth appeals, the applications for leave to appeal are allowed. The appeal against the orders of the Federal Magistrate dismissing the husband’s applications is allowed. The orders of the Federal Magistrate requiring the husband to pay the wife’s costs are set aside. Costs certificates are granted to both parties in relation to the third and fourth appeals.

Orders