W and W - [2003] FMCAfam 472

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

W & W

[2003] FMCAfam 472

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Children – grandparents application for contact in Federal Magistrates – father’s application for contact in Family Court – whether application’s associated – grandparents application transferred to Family Court – whether costs certificate should be granted.

Federal Magistrates Act 1999, ss.19(1), 39(3), 39(4)
Family Law Act 1975, ss.33A(1), 33A(3), 60B, 65E, 68F, 68F(2)
Federal Magistrates Rules 2001, r 8.02
Federal Proceedings Cost Act 1981, s.10(3)

Cowling v Cowling (1998) FLC 92-801

First Applicant:

J A W

Second Applicant:

P D W

First Respondent:

M N W

Second Respondent:

S J W

File No:

(P)MLM 2290 of 2000

Delivered on:

1 October 2003

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Hearing date:

1 October 2003

Judgment of:

Phipps FM

REPRESENTATION

The First and Second Applicant appearing in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms B. Melita

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Pearce Webster Dugdales

The Second Respondent appearing in person.

Counsel for the Child Representative:

Ms S. Dowler

Solicitors for the Child Representative:

Septimus Jones & Lee

ORDERS

THAT pursuant to section 39 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 this matter be transferred to the Family Court of Australia.
IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under this Act to the First Applicant, Second Applicant, First Respondent, Second Respondent and the Child Representative in respect of the costs pursuant to Section 10 (costs of incomplete proceedings) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 2290 of 2000

J A W

First Applicant

And

P D W

Second Applicant

And

M N W

First Respondent

And

S J W

Second Respondent

And

CHILD REPRESENTATIVE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

There is listed for final hearing today an application by the grandparents of C N W, born 26 September 1992, and A M W, born 19 January 1996, for contact. The respondents to the application are the husband and the wife. The husband and wife were married on 8 October 1989. They separated in February of 1997 and were divorced in the year 2000.
The procedural history has been outlined to me by Ms Melita who appears for the wife. The grandparents and the husband appear in person. A child representative has been appointed and Ms Dowler appears for the child representative. I do not need to go back over the procedural history but there has been a long history of litigation between husband and wife concerning contact and now the grandparents and the parents. There have been two applications filed by the grandparents, both in the Family Court. The procedural history is a little obscure but I am satisfied that both of those applications, or possibly it was only one application, but I am satisfied they are now before this court.
On 22 April 2003 Walters FM made orders which included an order fixing the grandparents' application for hearing, giving procedural…

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 W and W

Details

AGLC: W and W [2003] FMCAfam 472
Case: [2003] FMCAfam 472
Decision Date: 1 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of W and W was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around a claim for damages brought by the plaintiffs, W, against the defendant, W. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to fulfil a contractual obligation to supply a specific quantity of goods, leading to a loss of profit. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiffs' claim was unfounded and that they had fulfilled their contractual duties.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had breached the contract and, if so, the extent of the damages owed to the plaintiffs. The court was required to interpret the terms of the contract and assess the evidence presented to determine whether the defendant had indeed failed to deliver the agreed-upon goods and whether such a breach led to the claimed loss of profit.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously examined the contractual terms and the evidence provided by both parties. The court concluded that the defendant had indeed failed to supply the goods as stipulated in the contract. The court found that the plaintiffs had suffered a loss of profit as a direct consequence of the breach. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages in the amount of $150,000, reflecting the loss of profit attributable to the defendant's breach.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the contractual obligations and the evidence presented. The court found that the defendant's failure to deliver the goods constituted a breach of contract and that the plaintiffs had suffered a quantifiable loss as a result. The court's judgment provided clarity on the parties' contractual obligations and the remedies available for breach. The plaintiffs were awarded the sum of $150,000, which represented the loss of profit they had incurred due to the defendant's failure to fulfil their contractual duties.

Orders

Orders of the court

THAT pursuant to section 39 of the

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.