Babcock & Waddell

The appeal in Babcock & Waddell was brought by the father against a decision of the Family Court of Australia which permitted the mother to relocate the residence of the child from Sydney to Perth. The father argued that the primary judge had erred in allowing the relocation without adequately balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the move. He contended that the primary judge only addressed the disadvantages after deciding in favour of relocation and subsequently framed orders to mitigate those disadvantages. The father sought to appeal the decision on these grounds.

The court examined whether the primary judge had undertaken the necessary balancing of the advantages and disadvantages of the parties' competing proposals. It was found that the primary judge had indeed considered both the benefits and drawbacks of relocation. The court further considered that 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. The court also addressed the relevance of the English case Re: TC and JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292, concluding that it was applicable in Australian law.

The appeal was dismissed, and no merit was found in any of the grounds raised by the father. The court found that the primary judge had correctly balanced the advantages and disadvantages and appropriately tailored the orders to address the disadvantages of relocation. Additionally, costs were awarded in favour of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer as the father did not provide any factors in opposition to the applications for costs.

The orders made by the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the father pay the costs of the mother in the sum of sixteen thousand five hundred dollars and the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the sum of five thousand five hundred and eleven dollars. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.