Cassidy & Cassidy

In the appeal of Cassidy & Cassidy, the parties were engaged in a contentious family law dispute concerning parenting orders. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the father appealed against decisions made by a Federal Magistrate in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the Federal Magistrate had denied the father procedural fairness in various respects, including the granting of sole parental responsibility to the mother, the suspension of the father's mid-term school holiday time with the children, and the reduction of the father's access time on Wednesday evenings. The father also argued that the Federal Magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for the orders and failed to properly assess the parties' proposals and the impact of the orders.

The court found that while there was merit in the father's argument regarding the suspension of mid-term holiday time, as this was not sought by either party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), there was no denial of procedural fairness in other respects. The court held that the father had sufficient notice that the Federal Magistrate was considering an order for sole parental responsibility due to family violence. Regarding the Wednesday evening time, the court determined that procedural fairness was not denied as the father's counsel had the opportunity to re-open cross-examination and make submissions. However, the court did find appealable error in the Federal Magistrate's failure to provide adequate reasons for reducing the children's time with the father, particularly in not discussing relevant statutory considerations.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and certain orders were set aside. The matter was remitted for a rehearing before a different Federal Magistrate. The court also granted costs certificates to both parties and the ICL under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).