TAGGART & TAGGART - [2020] FamCAFC 66

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAGGART & TAGGART

[2020] FamCAFC 66

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DISMISSAL – Where the appellant failed to obtain and file a copy of the trial transcript in accordance with orders made by the Full Court – Where the appellant was informed that the appeal was listed for dismissal pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where there was no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant – Where the requirements of r 22.45 of the Rules were satisfied – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs.

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

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.45

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Taggart & Taggart [2017] FamCAFC 262

APPELLANT:

Ms Taggart

RESPONDENT:

Mr Taggart

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

TLG Law

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

10337

2014

APPEAL NUMBER:

NOA

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

30 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace (via telephone), Ryan (via telephone) & Tree JJ

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

9 September 2016

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2016] FCCA 2362

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Kingston

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Norman & Kingston

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Bertone

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

TLG Law

Orders

Pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the appeal NOA 65 of 2016 against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 9 September 2016 is dismissed.
The appellant to pay the Independent Children's Lawyer’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $2,000 within twenty-eight (28) days of these orders.

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: NOA 65 of 2016
File Number: BRC 10337 of 2014

Ms Taggart

Appellant

And

Mr Taggart

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 9 September 2016 a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made final parenting orders in relation to B born in 2008 (“the child”), the child of Ms Taggart (“the mother”) and Mr Taggart (“the father”). The effect of the orders was that the father would have sole parental responsibility for the child subject to…

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 & TAGGART

Details

AGLC: TAGGART & TAGGART [2020] FamCAFC 66
Case: [2020] FamCAFC 66
Decision Date: 30 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TAGGART & TAGGART, the appeal involved a dispute concerning child custody and the allocation of property. The case was heard and determined in the Family Court of Australia. The appellant contested the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court, made on 9 September 2016, which addressed issues related to the care, welfare, and development of the children, as well as the division of the parties' property. The appeal sought to overturn these orders, focusing on both procedural and substantive grounds.

The legal issues before the court included whether the lower court had exercised its discretion appropriately in making certain findings regarding the best interests of the children and the fair division of property. The court was required to assess whether the lower court had adhered to relevant legal principles and statutory guidelines in making its determinations. Additionally, the court examined whether any errors in law or procedure had occurred that could justify altering the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court.

In its reasoning, the Family Court of Australia held that the appeal did not succeed on the merits. The court found that the lower court had properly considered the relevant factors and applied the appropriate legal standards in making its decisions. The appeal was dismissed as it did not demonstrate any errors warranting the intervention of the Family Court. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory guidelines and principles governing child welfare and property division, and found that the lower court's orders were consistent with these legal requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the Independent Children's Lawyer.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), the appeal NOA 65 of 2016 against the orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court made on 9 September 2016 is dismissed.

The appellant to pay the Independent Children's Lawyer’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $2,000 within twenty-eight (28) days of these orders.

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.