Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156 - provides that in terms of a risk assessment, the Court is to determine that issue by weighing the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on the child in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected Digest Kaisler & Talgo [2020] FCCA 3596 (22 December 2020) - provides that in terms of balancing those risks, the court is required by the Family Law Act 1975 (‘the Act’) to give greater weight to the need to protect the child from harm.  

In re C (Children) (International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice intervening) [2019] AC 1; [2018] UKSC 8 - Lord Hughes referred to the word “sanction”, to describe an exercise of custody rights that results in the lawful removal or retention of a child in another country. 

Palmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27 - McMurdo JA (with whom Fraser and Gotterson JJA agreed) said that the determination of whether there exists a sufficiently serious risk of the dissipation of assets involves the evaluation of future possibilities, rather than the ascertainment of historical facts. Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128 - where the Court held that the applicant must show that there is a “danger” or risk of dissipation of or dealing with assets which will frustrate any judgment in favour of the applicant.

Valasco & Pellam [2021] FedCFamC1A 70 (19 November 2021)An employee of the respondent’s solicitor, Ms R, deposed in her affidavit filed on 17 December 2020, that on 11 December 2020 she sent the appellant a copy of the Application in a Case and the supporting affidavits filed on 9 December 2020 by registered post and to four email addresses used by the appellant.  The appellant claims that he did not understand the later email.  That carries an implicit admission, contrary to his evidence, that he did receive the documents.  The appellant conceded that he received the email of 11 December 2020.  He was therefore properly served.

The slip rule allows for an order to be amended if it contains an accidental “slip” such as a clerical error, mistake or omission. Examples include a party's name spelled incorrectly, or a typo in a date. Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 - provided that the purpose of the slip rule is to avoid injustice to litigants and that the jurisdiction to apply it should be exercised sparingly lest it puts at risk the public interest of the finality of litigation.  Hatton v Harris [1982] AC 547 - jurisprudence in respect of the concept “accidental slip or omission” is of considerable antiquity, emanating in the late 1800s in the Royal Court of Justice. L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatt

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 - provides that the primary object of statutory construction is to construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statute.

Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106 - illustrate that stay applications are discretionary in nature; however, they also point to a number of principles to be applied and matters to be taken into account when determining a particular application. Zhai & Niu [2015] FamCA 639 - provides that the discretion to stay the operation of orders should only be exercised where special circumstances exist which justify departure from the ordinary rule that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his or her litigation pending the determination of any appeal.  Digest Donalds & Donalds (No.2) [2021] FCCA 667 (11  March 2021) - the court has to consider whether an appeal

In the Marriage of Bennett [1990] FamCA 148; (1990) 14 Fam LR 397 - explained that a Court has a discretion to determine whether there has been a sufficient change of circumstances, to justify the reopening of the parenting issues in respect of a child, which have earlier been determined, as either a discrete or preliminary issue, or after a full and exhaustive hearing of all the available evidence. King & Finneran [2009] FamCAFC 152; [2001] 42 Fam LR 1 - provided that the change of circumstances must be such that there is a “real likelihood” of a change. Digest Dwyer & Ireland (No 2) [2021] FCCA 86 (22 January 2021) - provides that a change in circumstances, however significant, tha

Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd (2018) 261 FCR 301; [2018] FCAFC 93 - provides that her Honour’s factual conclusions, to the extent that they depend upon the credit of the parties and witnesses, and hence the reliability of their evidence, are neither “glaringly improbable” nor “contrary to compelling inferences”, which is the test of error on appeal for factual findings of that kind.  Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; [1990] HCA 47 - the High Court observed that the course of the trial and the whole substance of the judgment must be looked at, and the matter does not depend on the question whether a witness has been cross-examined to credit or has been pr

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34 - provides that the test to be applied in applications for leave to appeal under s 94AA of the Act is whether, in all of the circumstances, the decision is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong.

The parties determine the scope of the dispute, if you fail to mention something, it suggests to the Court you dont think its relevant. Beamish & Coburn (dec’d) (2021) FLC 94–005; [2021] FamCAFC 20 -In civil proceedings the parties determine the metes and bounds of the dispute and the fact that a person fails to put on evidence, for example, in relation to one of the considerations to be taken into account under s 117(2A) of the Act (Costs), is an indication to the Court that the party does not consider it to be relevant.

Daily & Daily [2020] FamCAFC 304 - a case involving an application to set aside a financial agreement on the basis of a material change of circumstances.