Reema and Baboor & Ors - [2020] FamCA 432

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEMA & BABOOR AND ORS

[2020] FamCA 432

FAMILY LAW – COURTS AND JUDGES – Disqualification – Apprehension of bias – Where father contends prejudgment of issues in parenting dispute based on observations and findings made in various interim parenting judgments, and other judicial conduct in the context of parenting proceedings – Application for disqualification dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; 201 CLR 488
Strahan & Strahan (Disqualification)[2009] FamCAFC 204

APPLICANT:

Mr Reema

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms Baboor

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Ms Reema Snr

THIRD RESPONDENT:

Mr Reema Snr

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

1995

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

29 May 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr O'Ryan SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Broun Abrahams Burreket

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Mr R Schonell SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Walter & Elliott Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Mr Edwards

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Watts McCray

COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

Mr Edwards

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

Watts McCray

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

Orders

The father’s application filed 15 November 2019 seeking that I recuse myself from further hearing the matter is dismissed.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reema & Baboor and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1995 of 2018

Mr Reema

Applicant

And

Ms Baboor

First Respondent

And

Ms Reema and Mr Reema Snr

Second and Third Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Since May 2018 the parties have been involved in a dispute concerning a property settlement and the future parenting of their only child, a daughter now aged four (“the child”), following the breakdown of their nine year relationship. The paternal grandparents with whom the family had lived prior to separation were subsequently joined to the proceedings and seek orders for time with the child.
In November 2018 interim parenting orders were made providing for the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father or paternal grandparents and for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility for the child pending final hearing.
On 15 November 2019, almost two months after I determined an application made by the mother in which she sought…

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 Reema and Baboor & Ors 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: [2020] FamCA 432
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Reema and Baboor & Ors*, heard before Hannam J, the father sought the recusal of the judge from further hearing the proceedings. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the application for recusal indicates a contested family law matter.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds for the judge to recuse themselves from continuing to preside over the case. This required an assessment of whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the judge, such that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the proceedings.

Hannam J dismissed the father's application for recusal. While the detailed reasoning is not provided, the outcome signifies that the judge found no sufficient basis to conclude that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed. The judge's decision implies that the standard for recusal was not met in this instance.

The court ordered that the father's application filed on 15 November 2019, seeking the judge's recusal, be dismissed. This order is subject to formal entry in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father’s application filed 15 November 2019 seeking that I recuse myself from further hearing the matter is dismissed.

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

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.