SCVG and KLD - [2017] FamCA 720

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCVG & KLD

[2017] FamCA 720

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.06, 5.06, 18.10

APPLICANT:

Mr SCVG

RESPONDENT:

Ms KLD

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

4380

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

3 July 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

3 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

In Chambers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In Chambers

Orders

The application filed by Mr SCVG on 29 June 2017 to attend by telephone on 4 July 2017 is refused and 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 of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym SCVG & KLD 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4380 of 2008

Mr SCVG

Applicant

And

Ms KLD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A review has been sought of the Registrar’s decision to decline permission for Mr SCVG to attend a Court event by telephone on 4 July 2017. That decision was made on 28 June 2017 following a request made by Mr SCVG on 25 June 2017 that he be allowed to attend by telephone.
The nature of the review means that the matter is to be determined as an original hearing pursuant to Rule 18.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004.
It should firstly be noted that the event for which Mr SCVG seeks permission to attend by telephone is for the assessment of costs following a preliminary assessment made by the Registrar.
Requests to attend by telephone are made pursuant to Rule 5.06. Pursuant to Rule 5.06(2) Mr SCVG is, before making a request, required to ask any other party whether that party agrees or objects to the use of electronic communication. I inferred by virtue of Part E of Mr SCVG’s request to attend by electronic communication that he has done so.
Pursuant to Rule 5.06(3) the request to attend by electronic communication must:
(a)    Be in writing. Mr SCVG has complied with this.
(b)    Be made at least seven days before the date fixed for the hearing. Mr SCVG, by his application dated 25 June 2017, complied with this.
(c)    Set out the information required under subrule 16.05(3). This appears to have no application.
(d)    Set out details of the notice in relation to the request that has been given to any other party. The extent such detail is contained at Part E of Mr SCVG’s request.
(e)    State whether any other party agrees or objects to…

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 SCVG and KLD

Details

AGLC: SCVG and KLD [2017] FamCA 720
Case: [2017] FamCA 720
Decision Date: 3 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SCVG and KLD, Gill J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by Mr SCVG to attend a hearing on 4 July 2017 by telephone. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between SCVG and KLD was not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant Mr SCVG's application to participate in the hearing remotely via telephone. This required the Court to assess the merits of the application and determine if such an arrangement was appropriate in the circumstances.

Gill J refused and dismissed the application. While the reasons for this refusal are not elaborated in the provided text, the decision indicates that the Court did not consider it appropriate to allow Mr SCVG to attend the hearing by telephone on the specified date. The formal order was subject to its entry into the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application filed by Mr SCVG on 29 June 2017 to attend by telephone on 4 July 2017 is refused and 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.