Glossary
Alphabetical Terms
A B C D E F G H I J K L M P R S T U V


B

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
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
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
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.


C

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
Barrett & Barrett and Anor [2017] FamCAFC 4 - observed that a parent who consumes cannabis and has the responsibility of looking after children, whether or not the children are asleep when the cannabis is consumed, is placing children at risk given the parents diminished ability to respond to medical or other emergencies such as a fire, that could arise with their children. Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 - the Court is entitled to make an adverse presumption or inference on basis of a parties failure to comply with drug testing Orders. T and N [2003] FamCA 1129; (2003) FLC 93-172 - where it was observed that if a drug-using parent cannot be free and alert from substance abuse,
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Dickons v Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244; [2012] FamCAFC 154 - held that the classification of contributions by reference to terms such as “initial contributions”, “contributions during the relationship”, and “post-separation contributions”, can be helpful as a convenient means of giving coherent expression to the evidence in a s 79 case and to giving coherence to the nature, form and extent of the parties’ respective contributions. 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Re Kelvin (2017) FLC 93-809; [2017] FamCAFC 258 - provides that it is not necessary for an application to be made to the Court where no controversy arises as to the competence of the child to consent to proposed therapeutic medical treatment by those with parental responsibility and those doctors and institutions providing the treatment agree with the course of treatment.  Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] UKHL 7; [1986] AC 112 - where it was held that when a child “achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to fully understand what is proposed” the child can consent to medical treatment themselves.   Re: Elliott [2017] FamCA 1008 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Dyquiangco Jr. v. Tipay 2022 ONSC 1441 - where the consistency with decisions of courts of comparable Western democracies is relied upon in giving the evidence considerable weight.  Cox v DP World Brisbane Limited [2021] FCA 1335 - where the court regards the consistency with decisions of other Australian courts in giving the evidence considerable weight. 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
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
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Kalant & Jordain (No.3) [2021] FamCA 191 - where it was held that “it is not the purpose of contravention proceedings to punish, or to deter others, or to salve the irritation of the other parties to the litigation, or to denounce the non-compliant conduct”.  Oswin & Oswin [2019] FamCAFC 164 - confirms that the purpose of contravention proceedings is directed to future compliance.
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 - the Court held that a costs order may be made against a person even though they are impecunious.  Limousin v Limousin (Costs) (2007) 38 Fam LR 478; [2007] FamCA 1178 - provides that the court ought not usually make an order for costs to be calculated otherwise than on a party/party basis, but where there are exceptional circumstances that warrant departure from the ordinary rule, then indemnity costs can be awarded.  Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59 - provides that costs are not awarded as punishment but rather as compensation for costs that ought not to have been incurred.   Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2)(1995) 57 FCR 1
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
C & C [2005] FamCA 429; (2005) FLC 93-220 - provides that the Court has the discretion to include a superannuation interest as an item of property (whether or not a splitting order is sought) and not consider it as part of a separate pool if the parties agree or if the superannuation interest itself fell within the definition of property contained in s.4(1) of the Act; or if the interest did not fall within the definition of property, it was of small value when compared to the value of the items of property; or there are features about the superannuation interest which make this appropriate.
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Cross-applications for contravention - where the primary judge’s determination of penalty was, quintessentially, an exercise of his discretion and will not be the subject of successful appeal unless the mother can establish one of the well know errors set out herein. 


D

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 4AA, 44, 79, 90RD - provides that a  person is in a de facto relationship with another person if the persons are not legally married to each other and the persons are not related by family.  Having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.    Crick & Bennett [2018] FamCAFC 68 - provided for the proper construction to be applied to section 4AA of the Act.    Marriage of Jacenko [1986] FamCA 25; (1986) 11 Fam LR 341 - where the Full Court stated that the general principle is that the Court proceeds on the evidence of the Applicant, which should be accepted unless it

FLAST

Close