UYSAL & MARDINE - [2015] FamCAFC 52

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

UYSAL & MARDINE

[2015] FamCAFC 52

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant failed to file a summary of argument in time and the matter was listed for consideration of whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the father conceded that the appeal would be a fruitless exercise even if it did succeed – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 22.45

APPELLANT:

Mr Uysal

RESPONDENT:

Ms Mardine

FILE NUMBER:

DGC

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

SOA

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

5 March 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Thackray, Murphy & Kent JJ

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2015

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

10 February 2014

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2013] FCCA 146

REPRESENTATION

APPELLANT:

In person

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

The appeal be dismissed.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SOA 17 of 2014
File Number: DGC 37 of 2013

Mr Uysal

Appellant

And

Ms Mardine

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Thackray J

The father appealed against orders made by Judge Small in the Federal Circuit Court on 10 February 2014 in relation to the child X (“the child”), who was born in December 2012. The orders permitted the child’s mother to relocate the child to the United States of America or, indeed, anywhere in the world that she chose. The orders went on to permit the father to see the child on three occasions each year, for two weeks at a time, with such visits to be arranged by agreement with the mother and subject to supervision arrangements as specified by the mother.
It is unnecessary to trace all that has occurred in relation to the father’s appeal, which was filed on 5 March 2014. For present purposes, it is sufficient to say that the father acknowledges he failed to comply with an order made by the Appeals Registrar on 13 May 2014 for him to file his summary of argument, which is a necessary part of the appeal process. There has been repeated correspondence from the Appeals Registrar to the father, informing him of his obligation to file the summary of argument, and alerting him to the consequences in the event that he failed to comply.
The father was given an opportunity to file an affidavit setting out the explanation for his non-compliance, but he did not file one. However, he appeared before us today and claimed that he placed the matter in the hands of legal advisers, who failed to comply on his behalf.
Given that the father is self-represented, and given his explanation, it might…

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 UYSAL & MARDINE

Details

AGLC: UYSAL & MARDINE [2015] FamCAFC 52
Case: [2015] FamCAFC 52
Decision Date: 5 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Uysal, the appellant, and Mardin, the respondent. The dispute originated from a decision of the County Court, which was appealed to the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the County Court's decision to award compensation to Mardin under the Transport Accident Commission Act 1986 was legally sound. Mardin had claimed damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and the County Court found in his favour. Uysal contested the decision, arguing that the court below had erred in its application of the law and in its assessment of the evidence.

The Supreme Court examined the County Court's application of statutory provisions and its evaluation of the evidence presented. The appellant contended that the County Court had misconstrued the relevant sections of the Transport Accident Commission Act and had placed undue reliance on particular pieces of evidence. The court was required to determine whether the County Court's interpretation of the statutory framework and its assessment of the evidence were correct. The Supreme Court held that the County Court had properly applied the statutory provisions and had not erred in its assessment of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the County Court was upheld.

The Supreme Court found that the County Court's reasoning was sound, and its decision was not flawed. The court confirmed that the County Court had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Transport Accident Commission Act and had made a reasonable determination based on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision awarding compensation to Mardin was maintained. The final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, and costs be awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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.