TALBOT & TALBOT - [2014] FamCA 128

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TALBOT & TALBOT

[2014] FamCA 128

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the Federal Circuit Court has original jurisdiction in relation to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – transfer of proceedings to the Federal Circuit Court as the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to s 33B(8A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 33B (8A)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1337C

APPLICANT:

Mr Talbot

RESPONDENT:

Ms Talbot

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

4263

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

17 February 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Launceston

PLACE HEARD:

Launceston

JUDGMENT OF:

Benjamin J

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Tucker

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Medina Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Mooney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Walsh Day James Mihal

Orders

Pursuant to s 33B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) these proceedings are transferred by the Family Court, of its own motion, to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at the Launceston Registry.

IT IS REQUESTED

The Federal Circuit Court shall list this matter for trial directions at the next convenient date.
Pursuant to s 33B(8A) that the Federal Circuit Court has the jurisdiction which the Family Court would otherwise have had been able to exercise but for this transfer.

IT IS DIRECTED

A copy of the reasons for these orders be taken out and placed on the court file.

IT IS CERTIFIED

Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT LAUNCESTON

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4263 of 2011

Mr Talbot

Applicant

And

Ms Talbot

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

Mr Talbot (“the husband”) and Ms Talbot (“the wife”) are engaged in property proceedings which were commenced by the husband in the Family Court of Australia Melbourne Registry by application filed 29 May 2013. The wife filed a response to that application on 20 June 2013 in which she also sought property and parenting orders.
At the time of commencement of the proceedings, the husband lived in northern Victoria and the wife lived in north east Tasmania. There is one child of the proceedings, C, who is aged four and who lives with the wife in Tasmania.
The proceedings came before Senior Registrar Fitzgibbon on 20 June 2013 and procedural orders were made as well as some interim orders. The proceedings where then transferred to the Family Court of Australia at the Launceston Registry.
On 15 July 2013, the matter was listed before me and some consent orders were made, some interim orders were made and directions were made to prepare the matter for hearing including a valuation of the property. At that time, I raised the question as to why the proceedings ought not…

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 TALBOT & TALBOT

Details

AGLC: TALBOT & TALBOT [2014] FamCA 128
Case: [2014] FamCA 128
Decision Date: 17 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Talbot & Talbot*, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia ordered the transfer of proceedings from the Family Court to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at the Launceston Registry. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but the order indicates a transfer of jurisdiction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to exercise its power under section 33B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to transfer the proceedings. This involved considering the appropriate forum for the trial and ensuring the continuation of the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Benjamin J reasoned that a transfer to the Federal Circuit Court was appropriate, likely for reasons of efficiency or case management, which are implicit in the court's power to transfer proceedings. The court directed that the Federal Circuit Court should list the matter for trial directions and confirmed that the Federal Circuit Court would retain the jurisdiction that the Family Court would have otherwise exercised. Furthermore, the court certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend the proceedings, as per Rule 19.50 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 33B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) these proceedings are transferred by the Family Court, of its own motion, to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at the Launceston Registry.

IT IS REQUESTED

The Federal Circuit Court shall list this matter for trial directions at the next convenient date.

Pursuant to s 33B(8A) that the Federal Circuit Court has the jurisdiction which the Family Court would otherwise have had been able to exercise but for this transfer.

IT IS DIRECTED

A copy of the reasons for these orders be taken out and placed on the court file.

IT IS CERTIFIED

Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend

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.