SUDANNA & MODHI - [2017] FamCA 673

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUDANNA & MODHI

[2017] FamCA 673

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father has pending criminal proceedings and is currently incarcerated – Where it is appropriate for the matter to proceed undefended – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where there are allegations the father has physically assaulted the child – Where there are serious concerns as to the father’s mental health and parenting capacity given his recent offences – Where the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the mother seeks to relocate to Melbourne with the child – Where it is appropriate to make orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 69ZN(7)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.12, 16.07

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175Goode and Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Farmer & Rogers [2010] FamCAFC 253

Jarrah & Fadel [2014] FamCAFC 14
Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4

APPLICANT:

Mr Sudanna

RESPONDENT:

Ms Modhi

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Ng

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5227

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

1 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

In person

RESPONDENT – SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Ng of Adams & Partners Lawyers

Orders Made on 19 July 2017

That leave is granted to the Respondent mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to inspect documents produced on subpoena by Burwood Local Court.
That the mother, Ms Modhi, have sole parental responsibility for the child B (“the child”) born … 2012.
That the child live with the mother.
It is noted that there is no application for costs by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

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 Sudanna & Modhi 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5227 of 2014

Mr Sudanna

Applicant

And

Ms Modhi

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings concern the child B born in 2012.
The proceedings were heard on an undefended basis on 19 July 2017 in respect to the mother’s application for orders in relation to the child.

The proceedings

The father commenced proceedings by application filed 2 November 2014. That application was later amended…

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 SUDANNA & MODHI

Details

AGLC: SUDANNA & MODHI [2017] FamCA 673
Case: [2017] FamCA 673
Decision Date: 1 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Sudan and Modhi. The dispute concerned the interpretation and enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The matter came before Foster J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the contract for sale of land was void for uncertainty, specifically concerning the description of the land to be sold. The Court was required to determine if the description provided in the contract was sufficiently precise to identify the subject matter of the sale with the necessary certainty.

Foster J found that the description of the land in the contract was sufficiently certain to identify the property. His Honour applied the principle that a contract for the sale of land will not be void for uncertainty if the subject matter can be identified with reasonable certainty, even if some details require further clarification or reference to external documents or circumstances. The Court considered the intention of the parties as evidenced by the contract and surrounding circumstances to ascertain the precise parcel of land intended to be conveyed.

The Court ordered that the contract was valid and enforceable.

Orders