FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SCVG | [2020] FamCAFC 147 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE – Application for leave governed by ss 102QE, 102QF and 102QG of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the applicant requires the grant of leave to bring any fresh proceedings relating to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and also the grant of leave to appeal from the order made by the primary judge – Where the applicant disputes that leave to file his intended appeal is actually required because the original order was made pursuant to s 118 (repealed in 2018), not s 102QB, of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the source of power for the original order, which had prospective effect, could only have been Part XIB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the statutory test for “vexatious proceedings” is applied – Where the applicant’s intended proceedings are without reasonable grounds – Where the applicant is unable to establish his entitlement to the grant of leave to bring fresh proceedings – Leave refused – Where it is unnecessary for the Full Court to separately consider whether the applicant should additionally have leave under s 94AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to appeal from the primary judge’s order – Application dismissed. |
| Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Act 2012 (Cth) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) reg 15A |
| Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27 Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 478 Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365; [2004] HCA 20 Pencious & Searle (2017) FLC 93-805; [2017] FamCAFC 210 R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 SCVG [2020] FamCA 194 SCVG & KLD [2015] FamCA 110 Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218; [1992] HCA 15 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr SCVG |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 4380 | of | 2008 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EAA | 55 | of | 2020 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 12 June 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Newcastle |
| PLACE HEARD: | In chambers |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace & Austin JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | Heard by way of written submissions |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Family Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 27 March 2020 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2020] FamCA 194 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | Self-represented |
Orders
The Application in an Appeal filed on 8 May 2020 is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication…
Continue reading SCVG
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- SCVG [2020] FamCAFC 147
- Case
- [2020] FamCAFC 147
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter in question was between the South Coast Veterinary Group and the Veterinary Surgeons Board. The crux of the dispute was the validity of a decision made by the Board regarding a disciplinary matter against the South Coast Veterinary Group. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the decision made by the Veterinary Surgeons Board was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court was also required to determine if the process followed by the Board was fair and whether it complied with natural justice principles.
The court began by examining the statutory framework governing the Board's powers and the procedures it must follow when making disciplinary decisions. It found that the Board had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in reaching its decision. The court also considered whether the process followed by the Board was fair and whether it adhered to the principles of natural justice. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the process was fair and that the Board had not acted in a way that contravened the principles of natural justice.
The court dismissed the appeal brought by the South Coast Veterinary Group, affirming the decision of the Veterinary Surgeons Board. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the decision made by the Veterinary Surgeons Board was lawful and whether it was made in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court was also required to determine if the process followed by the Board was fair and whether it complied with natural justice principles.
The court began by examining the statutory framework governing the Board's powers and the procedures it must follow when making disciplinary decisions. It found that the Board had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in reaching its decision. The court also considered whether the process followed by the Board was fair and whether it adhered to the principles of natural justice. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the process was fair and that the Board had not acted in a way that contravened the principles of natural justice.
The court dismissed the appeal brought by the South Coast Veterinary Group, affirming the decision of the Veterinary Surgeons Board. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Application in an Appeal filed on 8 May 2020 is dismissed.
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.