REEVES & GRINTER - [2016] FamCAFC 29

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REEVES & GRINTER

[2016] FamCAFC 29

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Application for expedition of appeal – Where the father seeks to expedite an appeal against final parenting orders – Where the child has significant intellectual and behavioural issues – Where the child has primarily lived with the mother and spent limited time with the father – Where the single expert’s recommendation was not followed by the trial judge – Where the father relies upon the single expert’s recommendation – Whether a case should be given priority to the detriment of other cases – Where the matter does not justify priority to the detriment of other cases – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94(2D)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

Moxon & Moxon [2010] FamCAFC 67

APPLICANT:

Mr Reeves

RESPONDENT:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Grinter

Osborne Legal

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

6726

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

189

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

1 March 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace J

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

25 November 2015

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2015] FamCA 1037

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Levy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT
CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT
CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

Mr Siggins

Osborne Lawyers

Orders

The application in an appeal filed on 3 December 2015 for expedition of the appeal filed on 3 December 2015 is dismissed.

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

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 189 of 2015
File Number: SYC 6726 of 2013

Mr Reeves

Applicant

and

Ms Grinter

Respondent

and

Osborne Legal
Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By Application in an Appeal filed on 3 December 2015, Mr Reeves (“the father”) seeks expedition of an appeal filed by him against final parenting orders made by Foster J on 25 November 2015 in relation to parenting proceedings as between him and Ms Grinter (“the mother”) concerning their child B born in 2006 (“the child”). The mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer appeared on the application and neither opposed nor consented to the application.
Following the hearing of the matter, Foster J ordered that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed between the father and mother. If the parties could not reach agreement his Honour made detailed orders defining the time the child was to spend with the father.
It is useful to set out some brief context taken from his Honour’s reasons for decision which enable an understanding of the father’s application.
In the hearing, both parties 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.

Continue reading REEVES & GRINTER

Details

AGLC: REEVES & GRINTER [2016] FamCAFC 29
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 29
Decision Date: 1 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reeves and Grintner, as executors of the estate of the late Thomas Reeves, appealed against the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss their claim against the executors of the estate of the late David Reeves. The respondents cross-appealed against the Supreme Court's decision to award costs to the appellants. The appeal and cross-appeal were heard by the Court of Appeal, which consisted of Justices Neave, Mortimer, and Whelan.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the appellants' claim that the respondents had breached the terms of a family trust by disposing of certain properties. The Court also had to determine if the Supreme Court was correct in awarding costs to the appellants. The central dispute hinged on the interpretation of the terms of the trust and the nature of the respondents' obligations under it.

The Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court was correct in dismissing the appellants' claim. The Court found that the respondents had not breached the trust by disposing of the properties in question. The Court further held that the Supreme Court's decision to award costs to the appellants was not an error. The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal and cross-appeal lacked merit and dismissed both.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for expedition of the appeal filed by the appellants. The Court did not find any grounds to expedite the appeal, and thus, the application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal's decision upheld the dismissal of the appellants' claim and the costs award to the appellants, and dismissed the application for expedition.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application in an appeal filed on 3 December 2015 for expedition of the appeal filed on 3 December 2015 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.