BAM v Mae

[2007] HCATrans 559

[2007] HCATrans 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M168 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

BAM

Applicant

and

MAE

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.25 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant and the respondent were unable to agree on an ongoing residence or contact order with regard to their two children.  At the time of the proceedings in the Family Court, one child lived with the applicant and one child lived with the respondent.  Young J ordered that both children reside with their mother, the respondent, and have contact with their father, the applicant, on alternate weekends, holidays and at other times.  Noting the benefit of observing the applicant and respondent in court, his Honour found that it was in the best interests of the children that they live together and that the applicant's domestic circumstances were totally unsuitable to accommodate both children.

The Full Court of the Family Court gave a unanimous judgment dismissing the applicant's appeal. It was an appeal against a discretionary judgment and s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) gave Young J a very wide discretion. The judgment of Young J was reasonably open to him upon the evidence and was not manifestly unjust.

The applicant's case raises no questions of law.  His application does not identify any error in the decision of the Full Court.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision.  The necessary extension of time is granted but special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.26 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED