Barker v Barker(2007) 36 Fam LR 650; [2007] FamCA 13 - the Full Court said that a miscarriage of justice under s 79A(1)(a) will occur if circumstances exist which “for some significant reason, make the order contrary to law and justice according to law as it relates to the integrity of the judicial process”. Molier and Van Wyk(1980) FLC 90-911; [1980] FamCA 85 -held that s 79A(1) of the Act “is intended to apply only to circumstances occurring before or at the time of the making of the order” and that “[t]he term ‘miscarriage of justice’ does not seem apt to apply to matters which arise after the order has been made”. Public Trustee (as executor of the estate of the late Gilbert) v Gilbert (

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662; [2017] HCA 8 - the High Court said that a  parenting order made under s 65D [of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)] involves the exercise of a judicial discretion because it is made by reference to a paramount consideration of a general kind, the best interests of the child, which involves an overall assessment of a number of other considerations. 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”.  Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725; [1978] Fam

Talbot & Talbot [2015] FamCAFC 132 - held that procedural fairness requires that the party against whom the proceedings may proceed undefended must be given a proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

Forbes v Bream (2008) 222 FLR 96; [2008] FamCAFC 189 - provides that the Court can provide the transcript if the interests of justice require it; but normally, that would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

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.   McClintock & Levier[2009] FamCAFC 62; (2009) FLC 93-401 - summarised the relevant principles which the Court is to consider, in respect to the imposition of a penalty arising from a contravention of the Act. Guilty Plea R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 -  Street CJ said that the leniency that follows a

Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165 - where any “rectification” of an award begins by either party identifying a “minor mathematical or other mistake in the award”.  Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Austarama Television Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 467 - where the word “rectified” was not used in the same sense as applies to a body of law concerning rectification of instruments. 

Agambar & Agambar [2021] FedCFamC1A 1 - relied upon by the Court in rejecting some of the wife’s reasons for relocating, that outcome is not precluded merely because those reasons were unchallenged.  MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461; [2010] HCA 4 - where the High Court said that each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents.   F v F [2007] FMCAfam 831; (2008) 38 Fam LR 52 - set out a summary of relevant principles drawn from High Court and Full Court authorities in relation to relocation.P & P [2005] FamCA 1032; (2005) FLC 93-239 -

Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter decided" and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties. In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

Dyer v Chrysanthou(No 2) (Injunction) [2021] FCA 641 - Justice Thawley identified two bases for the potential restraint of counsel: firstly, a restraint in respect of holding confidential information and secondly, and potentially overlapping the first, a restraint based upon consideration of the administration of justice. Nash v Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 957; (2019) 137 ACSR 189 - provides that the court will restrain a legal practitioner from continuing to act for a party if a reasonable person, informed of the relevant facts, might reasonably anticipate a danger of misuse of confidential information of a former client and that there is a real and sensible possibility that the i

Bannerman & Frank [2015] FCCA 3171 - held that the Registrar on a daily basis deals with applications for listings and is best placed to organise the Court’s affairs in a way best known to Court staff having regard to urgency considerations and the overall business of the Court.   Dyne & Dyne [2021] FedCFamC1F 96 -  provides that a review application in respect to a listing decision ‘has only one purpose which is to determine the appropriate hearing date for the pending interim parenting dispute. The order made by the Registrar fixing the hearing on 14 October 2021 is the solitary decision under review. Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647 -  noted that the review of a Registrar’

Warren v Coombes(1978) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 - provided that the inferences drawn by the primary judge must have been wrong before the appellate court has the right to intercede and the duty to decide the question for itself.

C v C (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [1989] 1 WLR 654 - held that the rights of custody may be in the court, the mother, the father, some caretaking institution, such as a local authority, or it may, as in this case, be a divided right-in so far as the child is to reside in Australia, the right being that of the mother; but, in so far as any question arises as to the child residing outside Australia, it being a joint right subject always, of course, to the overriding rights of the court.