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. 

Maddrey & Jane [2021] FCCA 866 (9 March 2021) - where the Court was satisfied that it was necessary to make a declaration of parentage having regard to the fact that the respondent was always a parent of this particular child - and was declared to be so by the Court so long ago, but out of deference to the way in which the Child Support Registrar has determined that the Act operates, and in the absence of any contrary argument. 

Scott & Scott (No.3) [2019] FamCA 936 - where it was held that application of the doctrine of undue influence to the evidence is not an exercise of mathematical precision; questions of degree are involved.

Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Bank of England [1979] UKHL 4; [1980] AC 1090 - defines a document as “a vital part of the law of discovery, enabling justice to be done where one party knows the facts and the other does not”.   Commonwealth of Australia v Northern Land Council & Anor (1991) 103 ALR 267 - observed that a document “relates to a matter in question between the parties” and is thus discoverable if it is “reasonable to suppose” that the document “contains information which may either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring it either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary”.

Beck & Beck [1983] FamCA 7; (1983) FLC 91-318 - defined earning capacity as a capacity to obtain income which could be used to provide maintenance ... and not merely as current income from personal exertion or from the use of personal skills.

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

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 - provides 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 not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so. 

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 - where it is well established that “[t]he basal principle is that what an expert gives is an opinion based on facts. Because of that, the expert must either prove by admissible means the facts on which the opinion is based, or state explicitly the assumptions as to fact on which the opinion is based”.  Georgeson and Georgeson (1995) FLC 92-618; [1995] FamCA 62 - provides that expert evidence may be adduced as to the proper method to be adopted, in the circumstances of a particular case, to assist the Court in forming an independent judgment on the issue of valuation by the application of the appropriate principles.

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 ...” Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 - Heydon JA, as he then was, summarised many of the core principles applicable to the weighing of an expert opinion.Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR - where if other admissible evidence establishes that the matters assumed are “sufficiently like” the matters established “to render the opinion of the expert of any value”, even though they may not correspo

Petrova & Leighton[2017] FCCA 315 - set out four factors the Court should be satisfied of if a matter is to be listed urgently:    (a) the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable basis for arguing for the substantive orders sought;(b) the applicant has demonstrated that, absent an urgent listing, the applicant will be prejudiced in relation to the substantive relief sought other than in ways common to other matters awaiting the Court’s attention in the normal course;(c) the applicant has demonstrated that there has been no unreasonable or unexplained delay in approaching the Court; and(d) a judicial officer is available to hear the substantive application.   Digest   Lombardi & Rider

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen (2016) 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88 - recognised that because a claim of a failure to afford procedural fairness, just as a claim of apprehended bias, strikes at the heart of the trial process and its outcome, that claim should be addressed first, given that the establishment of a lack of procedural fairness must result in a re-trial regardless of possible findings on the other issues. Digest Sattler & Furnie [2021] FedCFamC1A 20 (24 September 2021) - where the mother asserted that she was denied procedural fairness in the conduct of her case in that she was not able to call evidence from health practitioners about the [father’s] interf

LC v TC (1998) FLC 92-803; [1998] FamCA 47 - the authority for the proposition that counsel do not need to put all contrary contentions to a witness (relevantly cross examine), if the witness is sufficiently on notice of them, not that a judge must then reject that witness’ evidence.  Essentially if your lawyers fail to relevantly cross examine a witness this is not grounds for appeal.