Albert & Plowman

Case

[2022] FedCFamC1F 243

13 April 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Albert & Plowman [2022] FedCFamC1F 243 [2022] FedCFamC1F 243 13 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Albert and Mr Plowman were before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in relation to the parenting of their child. The existing parenting orders provided for Mr Plowman to have sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with him, and for the child to spend substantial time with Ms Albert. Ms Albert sought to expand the time the child spends with her, extend the duration of telephone communication and alter orders regulating the manner in which she can obtain information about the child’s medical and educational progress. Mr Plowman sought dismissal of the mother’s application. The court had to decide whether there had been a material change in circumstances warranting a revision of the existing parenting orders, whether the subpoena issued by the mother was justified, and whether costs should be awarded to either party.

The court found that Ms Albert could not identify any material change in circumstances to support her application. The court also found that Ms Albert had not satisfied the criteria imposed by Rice v Asplund. The court dismissed the mother’s application to vary the existing parenting orders. The court found that the mother had failed to demonstrate any legitimate forensic purpose in the subpoena issued to the child’s treating psychologist and dismissed the oral application for the Notice of Objection to be listed and determined before the commencement of the threshold hearing. The court found that the mother’s application to vary the existing parenting orders was wholly unsuccessful and ordered that Ms Albert pay Mr Plowman’s party/party costs of and incidental to the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $10,000.

The court dismissed the amended initiating application, the further amended response, and any and all other outstanding applications under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records. The copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors or to record a variation to the order.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Standing

  • Limitation Periods

  • Res Judicata

  • Specific Performance

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

10

Lazzari & Lazzari (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 585
Vader & Dantes (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 461
Whitehead & Whitehead [2025] FedCFamC2F 1027
Cases Cited

7

Statutory Material Cited

2

Rice & Asplund [1978] FamCA 84
Alister v the Queen [1984] HCA 85
Alister v the Queen [1984] HCA 85