Zabaneh & Zabaneh - [1986] FamCA 18

In the marriage of ZABANEH, C.M. and ZABANEH, J.

(1986) FLC ¶91-766

Other publishers' citations: (1986) 11 FamLR 167

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

Judgment delivered 23 July 1986.

Before: Evatt C.J., Fogarty and Renaud JJ.

Evatt C.J.: This matter is an appeal from the decision and order of Frederico J. made on 28 April 1986. On that date, his Honour dealt with four separate applications made by the husband. There was an application by the husband on 5 February 1986 for leave to file an application for contempt against the wife; an application by the husband for leave to file an application for sole guardianship and custody of the children, filed on 26 March 1986; an application by the husband for leave to file an application for access to the children during the May school holidays, filed on 23 April 1986; and an oral application by the husband for publication of the proceedings.

The order that his Honour made on 28 April was in effect that the husband have leave to bring the guardianship and access proceedings, and that those applications be consolidated with proceedings currently before Treyvaud J. He also made orders about service and the filing of affidavits. In addition, he adjourned without making any filing orders, the applications in regard to contempt and the application for leave to publish. It is against those orders that the wife has appealed today.

The history of litigation in this Court between these parties is a long and turbulent one. That is evident by the list of documents which appears in the record of this Court. It covers a span of six years from March 1980 up to the present time, and it is reinforced by the accompanying list of proceedings set out in the aide-memoire, which I should emphasise we rely on only in regard to its outline of dates, applications and orders.

The two most significant matters to refer to for the purposes of these proceedings are first, an order made on 11 October 1984; and second, an order made on 30 January 1985.

On 11 October 1984, a restraining order was made against the husband. The reasons for the decision are set out in a judgment of Emery J. His Honour restrained the husband from issuing any proceedings or applications against the wife in relation to any matter whatsoever, including any proceedings in relation to the welfare, guardianship and custody or maintenance for or access to the children of the marriage. There are four children of the marriage and their ages now range from 12 to 7.

In his reasons for decision his Honour made the following observations:

``Having reviewed the history of the litigation between these parties since their first separation in March, 1980 it is clear that the husband has pursued a great deal of litigation at enormous expense and created a huge burden both financially and emotionally for both himself and his former wife.

In view of the more recent history,…

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 Zabaneh & Zabaneh

Details

AGLC: Zabaneh & Zabaneh [1986] FamCA 18
Case: [1986] FamCA 18
Decision Date: 23 July 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between Zabaneh and Zabaneh. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a matter brought before the Full Court for determination.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of relevant legal principles governing the dispute between the parties. The court was tasked with resolving the contentious points raised in the appeal.

The reasoning of Evatt C.J., Fogarty and Renaud JJ, and the legal principles they applied are not elaborated upon in the provided text. Consequently, the basis for their decision and the specific legal doctrines relied upon remain undisclosed.

The final orders or outcome of the appeal are not specified in the provided text.

Orders