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


F

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33 - provides that it is an error of law to make a finding of fact where there is no evidence to support it. 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
functus officio refers to whether a decision maker has discharged their duty.  Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Kurtovic(1977) 17 ALR 219 - provides that the concept underlying the doctrine of functus officio has been described in terms equating to the statutory function as having been spent and that the issue is in reality a matter of statutory construction of the statute that confers the power in issue. R v Moodie; Ex parte Mithen(1977) 17 ALR 219 - where the doctrine of functus officio has been said to be preferable to the description or consequence of the performance of a function having regard to the statutory power or obligation to perform that function.


G

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
Aldridge & Keaton (2009) FLC 93-421; [2009] FamCAFC 229 - affirmed that, in child-related proceedings, the parents of the subject children do not enjoy superiority over any other person who is keenly interested in the children’s welfare, though the status of parenthood does require careful consideration in the application of s 60CC of the Act because some factors pertain only to parents.    Valentine & Lacerra & Anor (2013) FLC 93-539; [2013] FamCAFC 53 - held that deciding that the respondents were entitled to make that decision as an incident of their parental responsibility for the children and strongly implied the legitimacy of their decision need not be scrutinised, much les
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30 - provides that the demonstration of appealable error on the part of the primary judge is an indispensable condition to the success of the appeal and, hence, any intervention by the appellate court to re-exercise discretion.  Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39 - provided that the test for the grant of leave to appeal almost invariably required the establishment of good reason to suspect an error was made at first instance. Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth(1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 - provides that in the test for


H

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
LK v Director-General, Department of Community Services (2009) 237 CLR 582; [2009] HCA 9 - provides that application of the expression “habitual residence” permits consideration of a wide variety of circumstances that bear upon where a person is said to reside and whether that residence is to be described as habitual. 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST
Whitford & Whitford (1979) FLC90-612 - where it was held that the requirement, that the Court must be satisfied that hardship would be caused if leave were not granted, implies that it must be made to appear to the Court that the applicant would probably succeed, if the substantive application were heard on the merits.


I

  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Relationships Australia v Pasternak & Pasternak and Children’s Representative (1996) FLC 92-699 - relied upon in the case of Belrose in holding that the Police Act did not confer an immunity against production.  Strickland v State of NSW [2016] NSWDC 30 - in this case, the defendant (on behalf of the Commissioner) contended that s 170 of the Police Act extended to a privilege against production.
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296; [1971] HCA 54 - provides that a finding is open and immune from appellate challenge if it is reasonably premised upon, or is permissibly inferred from, some foundational evidence.
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
D & D (Costs) (No 2) (2010) FLC 93-435; [2010] FamCAFC 64 - authority that impecuniosity can be no bar to making an order for costs where there are circumstances that otherwise justify an order being made. Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141 - the Court held that a costs order may be made against a person even though they are impecunious. 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VicRp 2; [1989] VR 8 - provided that reasons will be inadequate if an appeal court is unable to ascertain the reasoning upon which a decision is based or justice is not seen to be done. Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85; [2017] HCA 49 - held that reasons need not be “lengthy or elaborate in order to be adequate”. Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 - provides that the reasons should enable the parties to identify the basis of the judge’s decision and the extent to which their arguments have been understood and accepted or rejected. Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48 - provides that a judge’s reasons a
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.Khadem & Penk [2020] FamCAFC 211; (27 August 2020)  : If further examination of the witnesses and additional evidence will unlikely change the result of the case, the appeal shall be dismissed.  The Full Court in OP v TP (Conduct of Counsel)  [2002] FamCA 
  •  · 
  •  ·  FLAST NEWS
Re P (a child) (1993) FLC 92-376; [1993] FamCA 40 - held that the ICL should be treated as “analogous to a ‘party’” to the proceedings. Zeng & Lam [2017] FamCA 66 - held that the effect of s 117(5) is that the ICL is to be treated as being unfunded and an impecunious party whether the ICL is seeking an order for costs or opposing one.  Howell & Carter (No 2) (2017) 317 FLR 151 - provided that the obligation upon an ICL is as to impartiality, but not so as to exclude an ICL forming views of the case and the best interests of the child prior to the full presentation of evidence.

FLAST

Close