AUSTIN & BENNING
Case
•
[2018] FamCA 1111
•21 December 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AUSTIN & BENNING [2018] FamCA 1111
[2018] FamCA 1111
21 December 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The mother sought orders to change the surname of the parties' three children to a hyphenated surname combining the mother's and father's surnames. The father had not filed any material in response to the mother's application. The court, presided over by Johns J, made orders to change the children's surnames and issued an injunction restraining the parties from using any other surname for the children. The father subsequently sought a stay of any order changing the children's surname, which was dismissed.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application to change the children's surname to a hyphenated form and whether to grant the father's application for a stay of any such order. The court also considered the matter of costs.
Johns J reasoned that the father's failure to file any material in response to the mother's application indicated a lack of objection to the proposed name change. In the absence of any evidence suggesting the change would be detrimental to the children's welfare, the court proceeded to make the orders sought by the mother. The court also ordered the father to pay the mother's costs fixed at $5,000.
The court ordered that the children, previously known as X Benning, Y Benning, and Z Benning, be known as X Austin-Benning, Y Austin-Benning, and Z Austin-Benning respectively. The mother was directed to register these changes with the Victorian Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. Furthermore, each party was restrained from using any surname for the children other than Austin-Benning. All extant applications relating to parenting orders were dismissed, and applications for final property orders were placed on a list awaiting allocation.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application to change the children's surname to a hyphenated form and whether to grant the father's application for a stay of any such order. The court also considered the matter of costs.
Johns J reasoned that the father's failure to file any material in response to the mother's application indicated a lack of objection to the proposed name change. In the absence of any evidence suggesting the change would be detrimental to the children's welfare, the court proceeded to make the orders sought by the mother. The court also ordered the father to pay the mother's costs fixed at $5,000.
The court ordered that the children, previously known as X Benning, Y Benning, and Z Benning, be known as X Austin-Benning, Y Austin-Benning, and Z Austin-Benning respectively. The mother was directed to register these changes with the Victorian Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. Furthermore, each party was restrained from using any surname for the children other than Austin-Benning. All extant applications relating to parenting orders were dismissed, and applications for final property orders were placed on a list awaiting allocation.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Costs
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
AUSTIN & BENNING [2018] FamCA 1111
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Reynolds & Sherman
[2015] FamCAFC 128
DUNST & DUNST
[2014] FamCA 964
Flanagan v Handcock S6/2001
[2001] HCATrans 588