Redmond v Stolz & anor - [2015] HCASL 175

Redmond
v
Stolz & anor
[2015] HCASL 175
B29/2015; B31/2015

The first respondent, Ms Stolz, and the applicant, Mr Redmond, are the parents of a ten year old girl. The applicant and the first respondent were parties to a proceeding in the Family Court of Australia (Forrest J) in which parenting orders and property adjustment orders were sought. Prior to judgment, Principal Registrar Filipello made orders which, amongst other things, permitted the first respondent to take the daughter on an overseas holiday.
The applicant sought review of the Principal Registrar's orders and filed two related applications. On 19 May 2015, the Family Court of Australia (Forrest J) dismissed the applicant's applications and made orders permitting the first respondent to travel overseas with the daughter, including an order that the applicant be restrained from taking steps to communicate with the Australian Federal Police so as to cause them to put the daughter's name on the Family Law Watch List ("Order 9"). An appeal by the applicant to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (May, Murphy and Kent JJ) ("First Appeal") was dismissed.
Prior to the hearing of the First Appeal, the first respondent applied for a stay of Order 9. The Court (Forrest J) dismissed the application. Following the Full Court's dismissal of the First Appeal, the applicant appealed against Forrest J's order dismissing the stay application. During the hearing of that appeal (the "Second Appeal"), the applicant accepted that one of his purposes in filing the appeal was to have Order 9 stayed pending the determination of a special leave application to this Court. The Full Court (May, Ryan and Kent JJ) dismissed the appeal, considering that there was no legitimate basis on which to grant the stay.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from orders made in both the First Appeal and the Second Appeal. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
As regards the application for special leave to appeal from orders made in the First Appeal, the applicant has not raised any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court. As regards the application for special leave to appeal from orders made in the Second Appeal, the proceedings below involved questions of practice and procedure which were resolved by the Full Court through the application of well-settled principles. The proposed appeals to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success. Both applications are dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders dismissing each application.

V.M. Bell
4 November 2015 S.J. Gageler

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 v Stolz & anor 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] HCASL 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Redmond v Stolz & anor, the applicant, Mr Redmond, sought special leave to appeal against two orders made in the Family Court of Australia. The first appeal concerned orders made by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in relation to the applicant's initial appeal against decisions of the Family Court. The second appeal involved the Full Court's dismissal of the applicant's application for a stay of certain orders made by the Family Court. The primary issue for the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decisions, thus warranting special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The High Court considered that the applicant had not raised any substantial reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision in the first appeal. The Full Court's decision had been based on well-established principles of practice and procedure, and the proposed appeal had little prospect of success. Regarding the second appeal, the Full Court had dismissed the application for a stay, finding no legitimate basis for granting it. The court concluded that the proposed appeal against this decision also had no reasonable prospect of success.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed both applications for special leave to appeal. The reasoning focused on the lack of any substantial grounds to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decisions and the application of well-established principles in the proceedings below. The High Court's decision was in line with the well-settled principles of practice and procedure in family law matters. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal the orders dismissing each application.

Orders