Sanston and Cadel - [2020] FamCA 519

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SANSTON & CADEL

[2020] FamCA 519

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – Protocol for the division of work between the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court – s 33B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 11.17 and 11.18 of the Family Law Rules (2004) (Cth) applied – Where the resources of the Federal Circuit Court are sufficient to determine these proceedings – Where the matter is insufficiently complex to warrant remaining in the Family Court – Proceedings transferred.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 33B

Family Law Rules (2004) (Cth) Div 11.3.2, rr 11.17, 11.18

Fair Work Ombudsman v Ecosway Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 102
Re W: Publication Application (1997) 137 FLR 205
Summers & Shaw [2011] FamCA 889

APPLICANT:

Ms Sanston

RESPONDENT:

Mr Cadel

FILE NUMBER:

CSC

341

2020

DATE DELIVERED:

29 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Cairns

PLACE HEARD:

Cairns

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

Pursuant to s 33B(1) and s 33B(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), these proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court to be listed on a date fixed by that Court.

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 Sanston & Cadel 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: CSC341/2020

Ms Sanston

Applicant

And

Mr Cadel

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 12 September 2012, for reasons then delivered, Benjamin J made final parenting orders (“the 2012 orders”) in relation to the parties’ child, X born in 2009 (“the child”) who was then a little over two years of age, and is now 11. Under those orders, Ms Sanston (“the mother”) was to have sole parental responsibility for the child, who would primarily live with her, but spend two nights each week with Mr Cadel (“the father”), together with time on special days.
Now by Initiating Application filed 13 May 2020, the mother seeks to revisit those orders, and in substance, to not only reduce the time which the child spends with the father from weekly to fortnightly, but also require the father to submit to random drug tests for a period of twelve months, and to compel him to attend upon the E Service until that service determines that the father’s attendance is no longer required. She also seeks interim…

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 Sanston and Cadel

Details

AGLC: Sanston and Cadel [2020] FamCA 519
Case: [2020] FamCA 519
Decision Date: 29 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sanston and Cadel concerned proceedings before Tree J in the Family Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. This determination was to be made pursuant to specific provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely section 33B(1) and section 33B(2)(b).

Tree J ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Federal Circuit Court. The Court directed that the transferred proceedings were to be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Federal Circuit Court. The form of this order was noted as being subject to its entry into the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 33B(1) and s 33B(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), these proceedings are transferred to the Federal Circuit Court to be listed on a date fixed by that Court.

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.