Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR 583 (6 December 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/160clr583.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR 583 (6 December 1985).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/160clr583.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185 (6 December 1984).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/156clr185.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 10 APRIL 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 (10 April 1984).
Equality had long been the starting point when dividing matrimonial property on divorce. The High Court in this case held that there is not to be a presumption of equality and that each case is to be determined upon a consideration of it’s particular circumstances.
Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires consideration of the financial contributions, non-financial contributions and parental and/or homemaker services.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Mullane v Mullane [1983] HCA 4; (1983) 158 CLR 436 (23 February 1983).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/158clr436.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 22 AUGUST 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered Taylor v Taylor [1979] HCA 38; (1979) 143 CLR 1 (22 August 1979).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1979/38.html
A husband failed to appear in family law proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW due to a misunderstanding on the part of his legal representative. In his absence, the court made orders dissolving the marriage and transferring the matrimonial home to the wife. Once the husband became aware of the orders, he made an application to the newly established Family Court seeking variation of the Supreme Court orders to the effect that the matrimonial home be sold and the net proceeds be divided between he and his wife. On the day of the application, the wife’s legal representatives mistakenly attended the Family Law Division of the Supreme Court rather than the Family Court. In the absence of the wife, orders were made by Hogan J of the Family Court in accordance with the relief sought by the husband. The wife then appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, who allowed the appeal ruling that Hogan J did not possess the statutory power to amend the Supreme Court’s orders.
The High Court allowed an appeal, ordering that the previous orders be set aside and that there be a re-hearing of the matter.
The High Court held that a court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
R v Dovey; Ex parte Ross [1979] HCA 14; (1979) 141 CLR 526 (3 April 1979).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/141clr526.html
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1976, the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975 commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088