SAMMARRA & ROSTEM - [2015] FamCA 358

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAMMARRA & ROSTEM

[2015] FamCA 358

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – SUPPRESSION ORDER – where the mother seeks a suppression order in respect of these proceedings and all material filed therein – where she asserts it is necessary to protect hers and the child’s safety – where the alleged threat to the mother and/or child’s safety is in a foreign jurisdiction – where the father asserts there is a lack of utility in making the order – where the mother has previously published information she now seeks be suppressed – where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – injunction sought to restrain a party from disclosing to any third party information which relates to these proceedings.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 68B, 102PD, 102PE, 102PF

A on behalf of B v State of NSW (Department of Education and Training) [2013] FCA 331
D1 v P1 [2012] NSWCA 314.
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission & Ors (2010) 240 CLR 651
John Fairfax & Sons v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 at 476-477
Lew & Ors v Priester & Ors (No 2) [2012) VSC 153

APPLICANT:

Ms Sammarra

RESPONDENT:

Mr Rostem

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Queensland

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

7973

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

15 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Hogan J

HEARING DATE:

8, 15 and 22 July 2014; and
By way of further written submissions filed by the Applicant on 1 August 2014 and by the Respondent 31 July 2014 and 7 August 2014

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Waller of M + K Lawyers

RESPONDENT:

No appearance on 8 July 2014

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Lloyd of Family Legal from 15 July 2014

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Chan of Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

The Orders made 22 July 2014 are discharged.
The Application in a Case filed 23 June 2014 is dismissed.
In the event that either party seeks an order that the other pay the costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case filed 23 June 2014:
(a)any such party shall file and serve brief written submissions in support of such application for costs within fourteen (14) days of today; and
(b)the party against whom an order for costs is sought shall file and serve within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter any brief written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking costs; and
(c)the party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve any brief further written submissions within seven (7) days of its service, strictly in reply to the submissions served by the party against whom an order for costs is sought,
and any such application for costs shall be considered in Chambers.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sammarra & Rostem has been…

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 SAMMARRA & ROSTEM

Details

AGLC: SAMMARRA & ROSTEM [2015] FamCA 358
Case: [2015] FamCA 358
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Sammarra & Rostem*, Hogan J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed on 23 June 2014, the details of which are not fully elaborated in the provided text, but which resulted in the discharge of orders made on 22 July 2014.

The central legal issue before the Court was the determination of the application filed on 23 June 2014, and consequently, the appropriate orders to be made in light of that determination. The Court was also required to consider the potential for an application for costs related to this proceeding.

Hogan J dismissed the Application in a Case filed on 23 June 2014. The Court further stipulated a detailed process for any party seeking an order for costs, requiring written submissions and responses to be filed and served within specific timeframes, with the final consideration of any costs application to occur in Chambers.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Orders made 22 July 2014 are discharged.

The Application in a Case filed 23 June 2014 is dismissed.

In the event that either party seeks an order that the other pay the costs of and incidental to the Application in a Case filed 23 June 2014:

(a) any such party shall file and serve brief written submissions in support of such application for costs within fourteen (14) days of today; and

(b) the party against whom an order for costs is sought shall file and serve within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter any brief written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking costs; and

(c) the party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve any brief further written submissions within seven (7) days of its service, strictly in reply to the submissions served by the party against whom an order for costs is sought,

and any such application for costs shall be considered in Chambers.

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.