Stringer & Nissen (No. 2)
Case
•
[2019] FamCAFC 185
•23 October 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stringer & Nissen (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 185
[2019] FamCAFC 185
23 October 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stringer and Nissen (No. 2) involved the parents of a child, born in 2014, disputing their child’s residence and contact arrangements. The matter was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia subsequently heard an appeal from the mother against Judge Morley’s orders. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The appeal raised questions about whether the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and whether he had exercised his discretion to make orders that were appropriate and in the best interests of the child. The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be allowed and whether the orders made by Judge Morley should be set aside. The court also needed to decide whether the appellant should be granted leave to file and rely on certain documents and whether the respondent’s application to adduce further evidence should be dismissed.
The court found that Judge Morley had erred in his assessment of the evidence and had not exercised his discretion to make orders that were appropriate and in the best interests of the child. The court set aside the orders made by Judge Morley and allowed the appeal. The court granted the appellant leave to file and rely on the Further Amended Notice of Appeal and the Amended Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. The court dismissed the respondent’s application to adduce further evidence. The court remitted the matter for rehearing by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court other than Judge Morley.
The court ordered that the appellant mother have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the appellant mother. The court ordered that the child spend time with the respondent father as agreed between the parties. The court also ordered that the respondent father deliver the child to the appellant mother at a specified time and place. The court granted costs certificates to both parties under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The court did not make any order as to the costs of the appeal.
The appeal raised questions about whether the primary judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and whether he had exercised his discretion to make orders that were appropriate and in the best interests of the child. The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be allowed and whether the orders made by Judge Morley should be set aside. The court also needed to decide whether the appellant should be granted leave to file and rely on certain documents and whether the respondent’s application to adduce further evidence should be dismissed.
The court found that Judge Morley had erred in his assessment of the evidence and had not exercised his discretion to make orders that were appropriate and in the best interests of the child. The court set aside the orders made by Judge Morley and allowed the appeal. The court granted the appellant leave to file and rely on the Further Amended Notice of Appeal and the Amended Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. The court dismissed the respondent’s application to adduce further evidence. The court remitted the matter for rehearing by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court other than Judge Morley.
The court ordered that the appellant mother have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the appellant mother. The court ordered that the child spend time with the respondent father as agreed between the parties. The court also ordered that the respondent father deliver the child to the appellant mother at a specified time and place. The court granted costs certificates to both parties under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). The court did not make any order as to the costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Parental Responsibility
-
Costs
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Rehearing
-
Pending Order
-
Specific Performance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hanratty & Hanratty [2023] FedCFamC2F 1467
Cases Citing This Decision
16
EAGLETON & EAGLETON
[2019] FamCA 894
DEBONO & CALLEN
[2020] FCCA 1857
Beaton & Beaton
[2020] FamCAFC 297
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Morgan v Miles
[2007] FamCA 1230
Salah & Salah
[2016] FamCAFC 100
Sampson & Hartnett (No 10)
[2007] FamCA 1365