Alphabetical Terms


Access is Reserved or Access was Reserved.Access being reserved means it is yet undecided by the Court.  It can apply in different ways. For instance here it was reserved as the court felt the parties could work it out themselves.The question of  access was reserved  by consent in the Magistrates Courts because the parties believed that they could arrange between themselves all matters of access.  (Armstrong and Armstrong [1983] FamCA 57). In another matter it was reserved, pending the court receiving more information.access were reserved ; a sec. 62A welfare report order was granted; a special fixture in February was ordered; the only procedural order was that not less than seven days befor
Trevi & Trevi (2018) FLC 93-858; [2018] FamCAFC 173 - held that add backs are “exceptional”, a matter of discretion for the trial judge, and reasonably incurred expenditure does not usually come within accepted categories of addback. AJO v GRO [2005] FamCAFC 104; (2005) 191 FLR 317 - the Full Court identified three types of addbacks that are commonly encountered in property settlement decisions.  Vass & Vass [2015] FamCAFC 51 - where the Full Court held that there is no error committed per se in adjusting the parties’ actual property interests by a calculation involving notionally adding back into the pool sums which have been dissipated by the parties.  
Adamson and Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232; (2014) FLC 93-622 - the Full Court said that in parenting proceedings, an adverse credit finding against a parent should not only be necessary to determine the real issues joined between the parties but should be soundly based, with due allowance for the limitations referred to. Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 - Justice Kent in the Full Court said that as a general proposition, civil courts usually refrain from specific adverse credit findings against litigants if the disposition of the case can legitimately be achieved otherwise.   
Myers & Myers[2011] 253 FLR 445 - provides that a Registrar can deal with the issue of allocating a “court date” being: (a) Where the Registry proposes to fix a first Court date in the normal course and the applicant seeks a different date but one that would still allow for compliance with the relevant Rules fixing time limits referable to the application;(b) Where the applicant seeks a first Court date that would not allow time for compliance with the relevant Rules fixing time limits referable to the application, but does not seek any variation of time limits fixed by the Rules; and(c) Where the applicant seeks a first Court date that would not allow time for compliance with the rele
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 - provided that an error cannot be demonstrated simply by establishing that another judge or an appellate court may have reached a different conclusion.
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550; [2016] HCA 22 - requires the findings made by the primary judge, which underpin the conclusion, to have been proved to be wrong by “incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony."House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 - provides that it is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course.    House & The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 - held that if the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does
Lane & Lane[2016] FamCAFC 53; (2016) FLC 93-699 - where in order to succeed in his application to set aside the consent order the father must establish three things: (a) That there is evidence to support one of the grounds in s 79A(1)(a); and (b) That there has thereby been a miscarriage of justice; and (c) That the Court should exercise its discretion to set aside the order.
Ebner v Official Trustee [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 - provides that the relevant test in apprehended bias looks at the assessment made by a “fair minded and reasonably well informed observer who might conclude that the assessment/decision maker might not approach the issue with an open mind.”.  Where the test for disqualification for apprehended bias appears.   Her Honour applied the test by considering the first step, namely the identification of what it is said might “lead a judge to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits”. Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; [1989] HCA 44 - held that to fail to raise an objection to an asserted demonstration of apprehended bias ca
Petruski & Balewa [2013] FamCAFC 15- in assessing contributions, evaluating the extent of the contributions of all types made by each of the parties in the context of their particular relationship is required.  Hickey & Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143 - in determining the appropriate orders for the division of matrimonial assets, value the property, liabilities and the financial resources of the parties, the trial date should first be identified, and then contributions of the parties assessed.


Guirguis v Guirguis (1997) FLC 92-726; [1997] FamCA - where the Full Court accepted that a bankrupt party cannot appeal property orders where the subject of the orders vests or will vest in the trustee in bankruptcy, because the bankrupt lacks sufficient interest.  Digest Glover & Webster [2021] FedCFamC1A 69 (19 November 2021) - where the appeal was against property settlement orders, with the appellant husband becoming bankrupt between the making of those orders and the filing of the Notice of Appeal, which was dismissed as the effect of the bankruptcy was to leave the appellant husband without the necessary interest to support the institution of an appeal in his own name. 
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67 - provides that the proper exercise of discretion in parenting cases may be broad, “[i]t is a mistake to think that there is always only one right answer to the question of what the best interests of a child require”.  Malcolm & Monroe and Anor (2011) FLC 93-460; [2011] FamCAFC 16 - provides that the determination of issues regarding children whether on an interim basis or at a final hearing is by reference to the best interests principle. Digests Foys & Laidler [2021] FedCFamC2F 364 (12 November 2021)  - where according to Counsel for the father, the order made by the Judicial Registrar that the parties and the children attend appointments
Abrum & Abrum[2013] FamCA 897 - provides that a binding financial agreement deals with the parties’ rights in relation to the property or financial resources of the parties in a way that ousts the jurisdiction of the court to make orders in relation to that property or financial resource.  Black v Black [2008] FamCAFC 7; (2008) FLC 93-357 - preceded amendments which provides a pathway for how binding financial agreements can be saved.