By and -

Key decisions

  • Manifold & Alderton [2021] FamCAFC 61
  • Amery & Kedrina [2021] FamCAFC 79
  • Fisher [2021] FamCA 236
  • Garrod & Davenort [2021] FamCA 276


‘Gross and deplorable’ seven year delay in handing down judgment ‘contributed to the making of substantial errors’

In Manifold & Alderton [2021] FamCAFC 61 (4 May 2021) the Full Court (Strickland, Kent & Austin JJ) heard a father’s appeal from parenting and property orders made in September 2020, where the trial concluded seven years earlier.

After a trial in 2013, further evidence was taken in March 2018, after which judgment was reserved again. A further hearing occurred in September 2019.

Strickland J, with whom Kent & Austin JJ agreed, said (from [36]):

‘[D]elay is not itself a ground of appeal, [but] the authorities are clear that where there is delay, the reasons for judgment must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny …

[37] Here … the focus is … the failure by the primary judge to take relevant matters into account, to engage with the father’s case and with the evidence, and to provide adequate reasons …

[52] … [H]er Honour concludes … that it is in the best interests of the children … to marginally increase [paternal] … time …

[53] The only basis for that decision … [is] a query ‘whether the father has the capacity to adequately support the children’ … and that the father has not ‘demonstrated’ how he would attend to the support needed …

[54] … [T]hese are all matters … addressed in the evidence, but which evidence was overlooked and clearly not taken into account …

[55] This is significant given the extraordinary delay here. … [H]er Honour was required to carry out a more detailed consideration of the evidence, and analysis of the respective cases … than would normally be required. The purpose of doing so would be to demonstrate … that the delay had not affected the decision. That did not occur here.

[61] … [T]here is no mention by her Honour of any difficulty experienced … as a result of the loss of the file and the exhibits. There being nothing said … to explain how she overcame the absence of these documents … provides another basis for finding that that decision is unsafe. …’

The case was remitted for rehearing and costs certificates were ordered.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more