SKIVINGTON & SKIVINGTON - [2018] FCCA 3952

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SKIVINGTON & SKIVINGTON

[2018] FCCA 3952

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application and response dismissed.

Applicant:

MR SKIVINGTON

Respondent:

MS SKIVINGTON

File Number:

PAC 2601 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Obradovic

Hearing date:

21 November 2018

Date of Last Submission:

21 November 2018

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

21 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Hernandez

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Dignan and Hanrahan Solicitors and Attorney

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Vincent

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Catton & Tondelstrand Lawyers

ORDERS

Dismiss the Initiating Application filed 26 May 2017 and the Response filed 17 August 2017.
Remove all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 2601 of 2017

MR SKIVINGTON

Applicant

And

MS SKIVINGTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 21 November 2018 the Court dismissed the Initiating Application filed 26 May 2017 and Response filed 17 August 2017. The legal representatives for the applicant and the respondent engaged in discussions with the Court before the proceedings were dismissed. Those discussions were as follows:
MS HERNANDEZ:   Thank you, your Honour. Ms Hernandez appearing as agent on behalf of the applicant father and husband.
MS VINCENT:   Your Honour, Ms Vincent appearing on behalf of the respondent wife and mother as agent for Catton & Tondelstrand.
HER HONOUR:   Both of the solicitors have sent agents without the clients, knowing that I wasn’t going to grant the adjournment.
MS VINCENT:   With respect to my client’s attendance, your Honour – she is based in Queensland, and I believe there’s material before the court attesting to an injury that she suffers which prevents travel. I’ve got nothing further to say.
HER HONOUR:   Fair enough, Ms Vincent. Thank you for that. Yes, Ms Hernandez.
MS HERNANDEZ:   Yes, your Honour. I can indicate it is our job to convince your Honour not to dismiss the application, which – I am instructed your Honour made comments in that vein on the last occasion. I can indicate that the parties have attended mediation in between the last court date and this court date. The mediation didn’t – if I could say – finalise, in the sense that the mediator had other commitments, and another mediation has been booked. So essentially they’re partway through the mediation.
The second mediation has been booked for 10 December. What arose from the first mediation – there were some valuation issues in respect of a car and in respect of the business. Joint letters of instructions have now been sent to both of those. They expect the valuations to be returned on 6 December, prior to 10 December. And they are quite confident that the matter will settle. I understand that neither party is pressing their parenting application. Essentially, the children and the parties have worked that out themselves. And it’s really the…

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 SKIVINGTON & SKIVINGTON

Details

AGLC: Skivington and Skivington [2018] FCCA 3952
Case: [2018] FCCA 3952
Decision Date: 21 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were SKIVINGTON & SKIVINGTON. The dispute concerned an application and a response filed in the Family Court of Australia. Judge Obradovic presided over the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether to dismiss the Initiating Application filed on 26 May 2017 and the Response filed on 17 August 2017. The court also had to consider the removal of all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

The court's decision to dismiss the application and response, and to remove outstanding issues, indicates that the proceedings were no longer to be pursued or that the court found no basis for them to continue. The specific reasons for this outcome are not detailed in the provided text, but the orders signify a definitive end to the listed matters before the court.

Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the Initiating Application and the Response, and the removal of all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss the Initiating Application filed 26 May 2017 and the Response filed 17 August 2017.

Remove all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

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.