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
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.
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63 - provides that disagreement only on matters of weight by no means necessarily justifies a reversal of the primary judge.
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."
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.”


Metwally v University of Wollongong (1958) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28 - provides that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a party is bound by their conduct of their case at trial.  Meaning your or your lawyers conduct at trial binds you and is not a grounds for appeal. Appeals are not opportunities to remedy evidentiary oversights or revisit poor forensic (strategic) decisions by the parties in the conduct of their cases at trial.


Colina, Re; Ex parte Torney[1999] HCA 57; (1999) 200 CLR 386 - Gleeson CJ and Gummow J stated that Section 21 of the Family Law Act creates the Family Court as a superior court of record, s 35 states that it has ‘‘the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority as is possessed by the High Court in respect of contempts of the High Court’’, and the relevant effect of s 112AP is to authorise provisions as to practice and procedure by the rules and to specify the forms of punishment.Coward v Stapleton[1953] HCA 48; (1953) 90 CLR 573 - the High Court of Australia  stated that it is a well-recognized principle of law that no person ought to be punished for contempt of court unless th
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 - the Court held that a costs order may be made against a person even though they are impecunious. 


Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 226 CLR 551 - where the Court need only record without further discussion that “deceit” is a long-recognised tort. The basic features of “deceit” in this regard are “false representation” made by a person who knows it to be false, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false, and who intends that it should be acted upon to the detriment of the other. 


Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 - the High Court set out the foundations for (a) the operation of s.79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) regarding expert evidence, and (b) the two bases or foundations that need to be satisfied for such evidence to be received and relied upon by the Court.
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Rich[2005] NSWSC 417; (2005) 216 ALR 320 - observed that if there is a reasonable inference that the receipt of the document will rationally affect the probability of a finding of fact, then the matter may to go to the tribunal of fact which will then determine at the end of the trial whether the document is authentic and whether the fact is proved. Capital Securities XV Pty Ltd (formerly known as Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd) v Calleja [2018] NSWCA 26 -  observed the operation of the Evidence Act as permitting inferences to be drawn as to the authenticity of the document. National Australia Bank Limited v Rusu[1999] NSWSC 539; (1999) 47
HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414 - Gleeson CJ referred to an expert whose opinion was not based on specialised knowledge but on “a combination of speculation, inference, personal and second-hand views as to the credibility ...”