Taggart and Taggart - [2017] FamCAFC 262

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAGGART & TAGGART

[2017] FamCAFC 262

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application to adjourn – Application made on the day of appeal hearing – Previous application to dispense with the requirement to provide transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge – Appellant in the process of seeking a review of a decision denying her Legal Aid – Appellant recently obtained advice that transcript necessary to properly prosecute appeal – Found the appellant would be irreparably prejudiced without the transcript – Costs application made by respondent and independent children’s lawyer – s 117(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applied – Appeal adjourned not to be relisted until the appellant provides the transcript – Appellant to pay respondent’s costs thrown away in fixed sum.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(4)

APPELLANT:

Ms Taggart

RESPONDENT:

Mr Taggart

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Couper Geysen Family & Animal Law

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

10337

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

25 August 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Thackray, Ryan & Forrest JJ

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2017

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

9 September 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2016] FCCA 2362

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Andrew

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Norman & Kingston

COUNSEL FOR THE

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Bertone

SOLICITOR FOR THE

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Couper Geysen Family & Animal Law

Orders

The appeal be adjourned.
Until further order, the appeal not be relisted until the appellant obtains and files and serves the transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs thrown away in the fixed sum of $3,500.
The application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer be 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 Taggart & Taggart 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).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 65 of 2016
File Number: BRC 10337 of 2014

Ms Taggart

Appellant

And

Mr Taggart

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Thackray J

The application before the Court is that of the appellant, Ms Taggart (“the mother”), for an adjournment of the appeal listed before the Full Court today.
The application is opposed by Mr Taggart (“the father”).
To provide context for the application, I will refer to the procedural history and to matters that have been put to us by…

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 Taggart and Taggart

Details

AGLC: Taggart and Taggart [2017] FamCAFC 262
Case: [2017] FamCAFC 262
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taggart and Taggart, the parties were involved in a legal dispute that was brought before the court. The nature of the dispute pertained to the outcome of a primary judgment, which the appellant sought to challenge. The court in which the appeal was heard was not specified in the text.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide related to the appeal process and the procedures for challenging a primary judgment. The court needed to determine whether the appeal was properly filed and if the appellant had complied with the necessary procedural requirements. Furthermore, the court had to consider the application for costs made by the Independent Children's Lawyer and whether it should be granted.

The court's reasoning and outcome were that the appeal was to be adjourned, with the condition that it not be relisted until the appellant had obtained and filed the transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs incurred due to the adjournment in the amount of $3,500. The application for costs made by the Independent Children's Lawyer was dismissed. These orders were subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be adjourned.

Until further order, the appeal not be relisted until the appellant obtains and files and serves the transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs thrown away in the fixed sum of $3,500.

The application for costs made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer be 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.