Reyman and Reyman & Ors - [2016] FamCAFC 178

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REYMAN & REYMAN AND ORS

[2016] FamCAFC 178

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the grandmother was discharged as a party – Where the grandmother would like time with the child separate to the mother’s time with the child – Where the other parties agreed the appeal should be allowed and the grandmother’s application for time with the child should be remitted for rehearing – Appeal allowed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the grandmother paid the costs of the transcript – Where there was an absence of procedural fairness accorded to the grandmother – The grandmother should be awarded her costs pursuant to s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65C(ba)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mrs D Reyman

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms E Reyman

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Tennett

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Christopher Wright

FILE NUMBER:

TVC

102

2010

APPEAL NUMBER:

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

2 September 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May J

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

23 June 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mrs D Reyman (in person)

FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

Ms E Reyman (in person)

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:	Connolly Suthers Lawyers
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Murray Lyons Solicitors

Orders

By consent, Appeal NA51 of 2015 is allowed.

Further, it is Ordered:

Paragraph (2) of the Orders made by Judge Willis on 23 June 2016 be set aside.
The grandmother’s application be remitted for rehearing at a date to be assigned by Judge Baumann.
That the Court grants to the grandmother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant in respect of costs incurred by her in relation to the appeal.

Notation:

The Independent Children’s Lawyer will discuss with the grandmother consent orders as proposed by the father.

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 Reyman & Reyman 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).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA51 of 2016
File Number: TVC102 of 2010

Mrs D Reyman

Applicant

And

Ms E Reyman

First Respondent

And

Mr Tennett

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 Reyman and Reyman & Ors

Details

AGLC: Reyman and Reyman & Ors [2016] FamCAFC 178
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 178
Decision Date: 2 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reyman and Reyman & Ors involved an appeal regarding the allocation of time with a child, separate from the time allocated to the child's mother. The grandmother sought additional time with the child, independent of the mother's visitation rights. The appeal was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary judge had previously dismissed the grandmother's application for separate visitation time, and the grandmother sought to challenge this decision.

The legal issues before the court included whether the grandmother should be granted separate visitation time with the child and whether the procedural fairness was maintained in the original proceedings. The court also had to consider the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties involved in the appeal.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the previous orders, finding that the grandmother's application should be remitted for rehearing. This decision was made by consent of all parties involved. The court found that the grandmother had not been afforded procedural fairness in the original proceedings, and as such, awarded her costs pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The Independent Children's Lawyer was instructed to discuss with the grandmother the consent orders proposed by the father, and the form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

By consent, Appeal NA51 of 2015 is allowed.

Further, it is Ordered:

Paragraph (2) of the Orders made by Judge Willis on 23 June 2016 be set aside.

The grandmother’s application be remitted for rehearing at a date to be assigned by Judge Baumann.

That the Court grants to the grandmother a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant in respect of costs incurred by her in relation to the appeal.

Notation:

The Independent Children’s Lawyer will discuss with the grandmother consent orders as proposed by the father.

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.