Salisbury and Landell - [2012] FMCAfam 240

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SALISBURY & LANDELL

[2012] FMCAfam 240

FAMILY LAW – Child Maintenance - Application by father to discharge arrears of maintenance owing pursuant to overseas orders.

Family Law Act 1975, s.66B, 66C, 66D, 66J, 66K, 66M, 66S, 66W
Family Law Regulations rr36, 37, 38

Cameron & Helie[2004] FMCAfam685
Daniels and Bell(2007) FLC93-315

Lutzke & Lutzke(1979) FLC90-714

Vakil & Vakil (1997) FLC92-743

Vaters & Kantner & Anor [2011] FMCAfam303
Wreford & Caley(2010) 43Fam LR 1

Applicant:

MR SALISBURY

Respondent:

MS LANDELL

File Number:

NCC 455 of 2011

Judgment of:

Terry FM

Hearing date:

8 September 2011

Date of Last Submission:

8 September 2011

Delivered at:

Newcastle

Delivered on:

23 March 2012

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

In person

The Respondent:

No appearance

ORDERS

That the father’s applications filed on 24 June 2010 and 15 June 2011 are dismissed.

That the order made by the Local Court at Newcastle on 30 July 2010 is discharged.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Salisbury & Landell is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 455 of 2011

MR SALISBURY

Applicant

And

MS LANDELL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In November 2009 the Child Support Agency notified Mr Salisbury (“the father”) that they had been requested to collect from him arrears of child maintenance which had accrued under orders made by the Court of Queen’s Bench of (omitted), Judicial District of (omitted).
As at 17 June 2011 the amount owing was $26,270.52.
The father has applied for orders which will relieve him of liability to pay the arrears.
Ms Landell (‘the mother’) resides in Canada. She has been served with all of the father’s documents. She sent affidavits to the court in June 2010 and August 2011 in which she made clear her opposition to the arrears being discharged but she has never filed a formal response. She did not attend the hearing on 8 September 2011.
Pursuant to Reg.36 of the Family Law Regulations I have the power to hear and determine the father’s application, but Reg. 38 provides that an order made under Reg. 36 is provisional if the relevant reciprocating jurisdiction is one of a number of named jurisdictions. The (omitted) Canadian Province of (omitted) is one of those named jurisdictions.
Proceedings will have to be brought in Canada to confirm any orders I make which have the effect of reducing or discharging the arrears. Past history, and the content of the mother’s affidavits, suggests that the mother will take part in any such proceedings and will actively oppose the arrears being reduced or discharged. The temptation therefore exists to declare that Canada is the more appropriate forum to determine the issue in the first place.
The father’s application is before me however, and should it turn out that I decide to dismiss his application this may be the end of court proceedings. I shall therefore hear and determine…

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 Salisbury and Landell 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: [2012] FMCAfam 240
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Salisbury and Landell involved a dispute between the parents of a child, focusing on the child's residence and contact arrangements. The father, who was the primary carer of the child, sought to alter the existing parenting arrangements to increase his time with the child and to reduce the time the child spent with the mother. The mother opposed these changes, arguing that they would be detrimental to the child’s welfare.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the proposed changes in the parenting arrangements were in the best interests of the child, and whether the father had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a departure from the existing order. The court needed to weigh the evidence provided by both parties and consider relevant factors, including the child’s welfare and the need for stability in the child’s living arrangements.

The Family Court found that the father had not provided sufficient evidence to justify a change in the existing arrangements. The court was concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on the child's stability and well-being, given the child's age and the current living situation. It was determined that maintaining the status quo was in the best interests of the child. Consequently, the father's applications were dismissed, and the previous order made by the Local Court was discharged. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the child's welfare and stability in making its decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the father’s applications filed on 24 June 2010 and 15 June 2011 are dismissed.

That the order made by the Local Court at Newcastle on 30 July 2010 is discharged.

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.