Family Court of Australia – Full Court
Hadaway & Beckham [2019] FamCAFC 137 (1 August 2019)
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Parenting – Where the father appeals against an order made by a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissing his application to re-open proceedings – Where the father could not establish before the trial judge any material change in circumstances pursuant to the principles in Rice & Asplund [1978] FamCA 84; (1979) FLC 90-725 (“Rice v Asplund”) – Where the father sought to adduce further evidence – Where proposed evidence not admitted under s 93A(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where it was open for the trial judge to find that there was no significant change in circumstances – Where the trial judge correctly applied the principles of Rice & Asplund to the evidence adduced at trial – No appealable error – Where there is no miscarriage of the trial judge’s discretion – Where the appeal lacks merit – Application in an Appeal dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Costs – Where the appeal is wholly unsuccessful – Appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Babcock & Waddell [2019] FamCAFC 129 (31 July 2019)
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Relocation – Where the primary judge permitted the mother to relocate the residence of the child from Sydney to Perth – Where the father asserts that the primary judge erred by referring to and relying only on the advantages of relocation without balancing those advantages with the disadvantages – Where the father asserts that the primary judge only addressed the disadvantages of relocation after deciding that relocation should be permitted, and in framing orders to address those disadvantages – Where the primary judge undertook the necessary balancing of the advantages and disadvantages of the parties’ competing proposals – Where it was appropriate for the primary judge to mould the orders to address the disadvantages of permitting relocation once it was determined that relocation was in the child’s best interests – Consideration of the application and relevance of Re: TC and JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292 in Australian law – Where there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders for costs in the event that the appeal was unsuccessful – Where the father failed to put any factor before the Court in opposition of the applications for costs – Costs
