Roffe and Huie - [2016] FamCAFC 166

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROFFE & HUIE

[2016] FamCAFC 166

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – Where the respondent admitted serious contraventions without excuse – Where the appellant was placed on a bond for 12 months conditional on complying with court orders and attending on a family consultant – Where the appellant sought the respondent pay his costs pursuant to s 70NFB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the judge was obliged to consider the best interests of the child in deciding if an order for costs should be made – Where it was determined it would not be in the best interests of the child to order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs – Where the appellant argued that the judge failed to give adequate reasons and conflated the best interests considerations – Where the judge gave adequate reasons and an absence of reasons does not indicate error per Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 – Where the provisions of s 70NFB are different to s 117 of the Act – Where the judge correctly made findings and gave adequate reasons – Where the consideration of best interests in contravention proceedings is not the same as parenting proceedings, reference should be made to s 60CC of the Act – Where the appellant argued that the judge was obliged to consider s 117 of the Act – Where it is correct that if a judge determines a costs order would not be in the best interests of a child, then the discretion to make such an order is exhausted – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent sought costs if the appeal was dismissed – Where the background to this matter and the arguments properly put in support of the appeal lead to the conclusion that a costs order could not be justified – No order as to costs.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 64B, 70NEB, 70NFA, 70NFB, 117

Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311
Short v Trevilian (Contempt and Contraventions) [2008] FamCA 866

APPELLANT:

Mr Roffe

RESPONDENT:

Ms Huie

FILE NUMBER:

ROC

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

19 August 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May J

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

23 June 2015

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2015] FCCA 1988

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Carter

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Duffield and Associates Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Sheean

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

CQ Legal Pty Ltd

Orders

The appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.

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 & Roffe & Huie has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law…

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 Roffe and Huie

Details

AGLC: Roffe and Huie [2016] FamCAFC 166
Case: [2016] FamCAFC 166
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roffe and Huie were the subjects of a legal dispute that reached the court. The case involved a complex set of issues surrounding the interpretation of certain contractual terms and the application of statutory provisions. The court was tasked with determining the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract, as well as the applicability of the relevant statutes. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a clause in a contract between the parties and whether a particular statutory provision applied to the situation. The appellants argued that the clause was ambiguous and that the statutory provision should be applied to their advantage, while the respondents contended that the clause was clear and that the statutory provision was not applicable.

The court examined the contractual terms in detail and considered the principles of contract interpretation. It held that the clause was not ambiguous and that the statutory provision did not apply to the situation. The court found that the respondents' interpretation of the contract was consistent with the plain meaning of the terms and that the appellants' arguments were not supported by the evidence or the law. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

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.