___________________________________________________________________________________

 MAR v ACD; RFR; SP & JMP (2002) FLC ¶ 93-097

Family Court of Australia at Newcastle Judgment delivered 6 February 2002 (Appeared for the interveners)  

This case deals with the circumstances in which evidence from an expert's report might be admissible in support of an application that a party to proceedings provide security for costs prior to being permitted to have their case heard and determined.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

PIERCE, LA v PIERCE, EA (1999) FLC ¶ 92-844

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia at Sydney Judgment delivered 10 June 1998 (Appeared for the appellant husband) 

This important case is an often cited for the following proposition:

"In our opinion it is not so much a matter of erosion of contribution but a question of what is to be attached, in all the circumstances, to the initial contribution. It is necessary to weigh the initial contributions by the party with all other relevant contributions of husband and wife. In considering the weight to be attached to the initial contribution, in the case of the husband, regard must be had to the use made by the parties of that contribution. In the present case that use was the substantial contribution to the purchase price of the matrimonial home."

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

PELLEGRINO, J v PELLEGRINO, O (1997) FLC ¶ 92-789

Family Court of Australia at Sydney Judgment delivered 23 October 1997, Chisholm J. (Appeared for the husband)

In determining the intention of the wife's parents in providing a benefit to the parties, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that parents frequently make provision for their children in a manner which does not involve the formulation or consideration of whether they intend to benefit their own child, or both parties to the marriage: see Gosper and Gosper (1987) FLC ¶ 91-818; Kessey and Kessey (1994) FLC ¶ 92-495; (1994) 18 Fam LR 149; Rickaby and Rickaby (1995) FLC ¶ 92-642; (1995) 19 Fam LR 814, which were considered.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

 P v P (1995) FLC ¶ 92-615

High Court of Australia Judgment delivered 20 April 1994 (Appeared for the wife led by D.F. Jackson Q.C.)

This case reserved five questions for the High Court. They were:

1. Does the Family Law Act 1975 purport to confer on the Family Court of Australia the power to make an order authorising a person to carry out on a child of a marriage medical treatment in New South Wales that is intended, or is reasonably likely, to have the effect of rendering the child permanently infertile, in circumstances where the carrying out of the treatment would otherwise be contrary to the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)?
2. If yes to 1, is such purported conferral of power on the Family Court consistent with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution?
3. If yes to 2, is such purported conferral of power on the Family Court a valid exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament?
4. If yes to 3, except in cases to which section 60H(2)(e) of the Family Law Act applies, does that Act, by virtue of sec 109 of the Constitution, invalidate the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) to the extent that the latter Act purports to prohibit or authorise a medical procedure to be carried out on a child of a marriage that is intended, or is reasonably likely, to have the effect of rendering the child permanently infertile?
5. If yes to 4, will orders by the Family Court as sought by the applicant in this case provide a valid authority to a medical practitioner in New South Wales to carry out the procedure referred to?

The five questions in the case stated were answered as follows:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes. But only to the extent that sec 35(1) of the Guardianship Act would prohibit medical or dental treatment authorised by a competent order of the Family Court of Australia.

5. Yes.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

McDONALD, IA and McDONALD, N (1994) FLC ¶ 92-508

Family Court of Australia at Canberra Judgment delivered 30 September 1994, Mushin J. (Appeared for the wife)

In what circumstances should parties to proceedings contribute to the costs of a child’s separate representative if they have the financial capacity to do so.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

 In the matter of P (a child)  (1993) FLC ¶ 92-376

Full Court of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne Judgment delivered 23 April 1993 (Appeared for the wife)

While natural justice will require that parents are given all reasonable opportunity to present the evidence relevant to support their "case" it will not justify an unlimited right to do so at the expense of the interests of the children. In most cases, provided the initial interview and assessment is conducted in a competent manner, the conclusions to be drawn from it can be adequately challenged by other expert evidence without the necessity for a further interview with the child. Section 102A does not prohibit repeated examination of children; it renders evidence resulting from such examinations.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

BLACK v. BLACK (1991) DFC ¶ 95-113

NSW Court of Appeal delivered 14 November 1991 (Appeared for the Respondent)

This case at the time was a milestone as it dealt with fundamental issues like how to treat home-maker contributions, presumptions of equality in long relationships and the application of Family Law Act cases to property proceedings between unmarried couples.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

MAGRO, P.A. and MAGRO, R.M. (1989) FLC ¶ 92-005

Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. Judgment delivered 10 February 1989, Rourke J. (Appeared for the wife)

There might be a conflict in allowing a solicitor to continue to represent a party and the appearance of justice would not long "survive any general impression that lawyers can readily change sides" (per Bryson J. in D. & J. Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Head & Ors (1987) 9 N.S.W.L.R. 118 at pp. 122-123). In this case the Court was satisfied that "real mischief and real prejudice will in all human probability result if the solicitor is allowed to act" (per Cozens-Hardy M.R. in Rakusen v. Ellis (1912) 1 Ch. 831).