SORBO & SOULOS - [2015] FamCAFC 90

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SORBO & SOULOS

[2015] FamCAFC 90

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the mother seeks to expedite an appeal against final parenting orders that denied her application to relocate overseas with the child – Whether a case should be given priority to the detriment of other cases – Where the nature of the appeal justified priority to this matter to the detriment of other cases – Application granted.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): s 94(2D)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): rr 10A, 12.10A

APPLICANT:

Ms Sorbo

RESPONDENT:

Mr Soulos

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Robertson Solicitors

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5406

2012

APPEAL NUMBER:

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

8 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ryan J

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2015

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

26 March 2015

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2015] FamCA 196

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr B. Levet

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

Spectrum Legal Group

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Hazim

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Thurlow Fisher Lawyers

Orders

That the appeal filed 22 April 2015 and cross-appeal filed 23 April 2015 be expedited.
Subject to further direction the appeal and cross-appeal be listed for hearing in the September 2015 sittings of the Full Court in Sydney.
The cross-appellant to file a draft appeal index within 14 days of the draft appeal index prepared by the appellant being filed and served.
The solicitors for the parties to forthwith approach the Appeals Registrar for an urgent procedural hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sorbo & Soulos has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURSIDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 54 of 2014
File Number: PAC 5406 of 2012

Ms Sorbo

Applicant

And

Mr Soulos

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These reasons were delivered orally.
By an application in an appeal filed on 23 April 2015, Ms Sorbo (“the mother”) seeks an order for an expedited hearing of her cross-appeal filed the same day against the final parenting orders made by Foster J on

26 March 2015. The parenting proceedings concern the parties’ son B, born in 2011. The mother sought to relocate with the child to Country N in Europe. In summary the orders provided that the child lives with the mother who was restrained from relocating with the child outside of the Sydney region without the written consent of the father. The orders also provide for the father to spend time with the child.
Mr Soulos is the child’s father and the respondent to this application (“the father”). By Notice of Appeal filed on 22 April 2015, he seeks to set aside the majority of the orders made by the primary judge. He does not oppose orders that the appeal and cross-appeal be expedited.

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 SORBO & SOULOS

Details

AGLC: SORBO & SOULOS [2015] FamCAFC 90
Case: [2015] FamCAFC 90
Decision Date: 8 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sorbo & Soulos is a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The parties involved in the dispute are Sorbo and Soulos. The nature of the dispute is not explicitly detailed in the text, but it pertains to an appeal and a cross-appeal filed in April 2015. The Federal Court was required to decide on several legal issues, including the expediting of the appeal and cross-appeal, the listing of the appeal and cross-appeal for hearing in the September 2015 sittings of the Full Court in Sydney, the requirement for the cross-appellant to file a draft appeal index, and the directive for the solicitors for the parties to approach the Appeals Registrar for an urgent procedural hearing.

The court's reasoning was based on the need for efficiency and fairness in the judicial process. By expediting the appeal and cross-appeal, the court aimed to ensure that the legal matters were addressed promptly. Listing the appeal and cross-appeal for hearing in the September 2015 sittings of the Full Court in Sydney provided a specific timeline for the proceedings. Requiring the cross-appellant to file a draft appeal index within 14 days of the appellant's draft appeal index being filed and served aimed to streamline the preparation for the appeal. Finally, the directive for the solicitors for the parties to approach the Appeals Registrar for an urgent procedural hearing was intended to address any procedural issues that may have arisen during the course of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court's outcome was to issue several orders to facilitate the expeditious and efficient handling of the appeal and cross-appeal. The appeal and cross-appeal were to be expedited and listed for hearing in the September 2015 sittings of the Full Court in Sydney. The cross-appellant was required to file a draft appeal index within 14 days of the appellant's draft appeal index being filed and served. The solicitors for the parties were directed to forthwith approach the Appeals Registrar for an urgent procedural hearing. These orders aimed to ensure that the legal proceedings were conducted in a timely and orderly manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal filed 22 April 2015 and cross-appeal filed 23 April 2015 be expedited.

Subject to further direction the appeal and cross-appeal be listed for hearing in the September 2015 sittings of the Full Court in Sydney.

The cross-appellant to file a draft appeal index within 14 days of the draft appeal index prepared by the appellant being filed and served.

The solicitors for the parties to forthwith approach the Appeals Registrar for an urgent procedural hearing.

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.