Vale and Vale (No 2) - [2016] FamCA 586

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VALE & VALE (NO 2)

[2016] FamCA 586

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Oral Application to transfer proceedings from one Registry to another – Application refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004

APPLICANT:

Ms Vale

RESPONDENT:

Mr Vale

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Queensland

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

7455

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

18 July 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Hogan J

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT:

In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Ulbrick, G & D Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Andrew

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Applicant’s oral application made today for a transfer of the proceedings to the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED

A.It is inappropriate to communicate directly with Chambers other than in exceptional circumstances and any such necessary and exceptional communication must be with the consent of all parties and contemporaneously copied to all parties.
B.All communications, unless otherwise directed, should be via the Registry to the attention of the case manager or to the National Enquiry Centre on 1300 352 000.

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 Vale & Vale (No 2) 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7455 of 2012

Ms Vale

Applicant

And

Mr Vale

Respondent

And

The Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me, as part of a number of interlocutory Applications listed for determination today, either:
a)as contained within one of those documents filed by Ms Vale, an Application for an order transferring the proceedings to the Sydney Registry of this Court; or
b)her oral Application, made by leave today, seeking such order.
Such application is made possible pursuant to Rule 11.17 of the Family Law Rules, which provides that a party may apply to have a case heard at another place or transferred to another Registry exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Rule 11.18 of the Family Law Rules outlines those matters to be considered by a Court in deciding whether to transfer a proceeding from one Registry of the Court to another.
The application by Ms Vale is opposed by the father’s legal representative on his behalf and also by Mr Andrew, who appears on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The factors to be considered in determining an application…

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 Vale and Vale (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Vale and Vale (No 2) [2016] FamCA 586
Case: [2016] FamCA 586
Decision Date: 18 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Vale and Vale (No 2)*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia considered an oral application by the applicant for the transfer of proceedings to the Sydney Registry. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, Mr. and Mrs. Vale, is not detailed in the provided extract, beyond the fact that it was a matter before the Family Court.

The sole legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant's request to transfer the proceedings from their current registry to the Sydney Registry. This required the court to consider the relevant rules and principles governing the transfer of Family Court proceedings.

Hogan J dismissed the applicant's oral application. While the reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, the decision indicates that the court did not find sufficient grounds to order the transfer of the proceedings to Sydney. The court's decision was to maintain the proceedings in their existing registry.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Applicant’s oral application made today for a transfer of the proceedings to the Sydney Registry of the Family Court of Australia is 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.