CDJ v VAJ
Case
•
[1998] HCA 67
•22 October 1998
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
[1998] HCA 67
22 October 1998
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the father (CDJ) against parenting orders made by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. The dispute originated from parenting orders made by a primary judge concerning the parties' two natural children, C and D. The Full Court had allowed the mother's appeal, admitted further evidence, and ordered a rehearing of the matter.
The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Court had erred in admitting further evidence on appeal and in ordering a rehearing. Specifically, the Court considered the principles governing appeals concerning parenting orders, the paramountcy principle of the child's best interests, and the discretion of the Full Court to receive further evidence under section 93A(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court also examined the extent to which common law principles regarding fresh evidence, such as those in *Wollongong Corporation v Cowan*, applied to the statutory discretion conferred by section 93A(2).
The High Court held that the common law rules governing the admission of fresh evidence did not automatically confine the discretion to receive further evidence under section 93A(2) of the Act. The Court found that the Full Court's discretion to receive further evidence was broad, provided it was exercised judicially and consistently with the judicial process. However, the Court also applied the principles established in *House v The King* and *Gronow v Gronow*, which dictate that discretionary judgments, including those concerning parenting orders, can only be set aside on strictly limited grounds. The Court concluded that the Full Court had erred in its approach to admitting further evidence and ordering a rehearing, particularly in relation to issues of residency and contact.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Full Court's orders for a rehearing concerning residency and contact. The Court ordered that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed in so far as it related to those issues. The parties were granted liberty to file written submissions regarding property alteration orders, the setting aside of a previous order, and costs.
The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Court had erred in admitting further evidence on appeal and in ordering a rehearing. Specifically, the Court considered the principles governing appeals concerning parenting orders, the paramountcy principle of the child's best interests, and the discretion of the Full Court to receive further evidence under section 93A(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court also examined the extent to which common law principles regarding fresh evidence, such as those in *Wollongong Corporation v Cowan*, applied to the statutory discretion conferred by section 93A(2).
The High Court held that the common law rules governing the admission of fresh evidence did not automatically confine the discretion to receive further evidence under section 93A(2) of the Act. The Court found that the Full Court's discretion to receive further evidence was broad, provided it was exercised judicially and consistently with the judicial process. However, the Court also applied the principles established in *House v The King* and *Gronow v Gronow*, which dictate that discretionary judgments, including those concerning parenting orders, can only be set aside on strictly limited grounds. The Court concluded that the Full Court had erred in its approach to admitting further evidence and ordering a rehearing, particularly in relation to issues of residency and contact.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Full Court's orders for a rehearing concerning residency and contact. The Court ordered that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed in so far as it related to those issues. The parties were granted liberty to file written submissions regarding property alteration orders, the setting aside of a previous order, and costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
Most Recent Citation
Cobrum Capital Trading Pty Ltd v Hanson and Matthews [2010] VCC 627
Cases Citing This Decision
2,100
Cases Cited
21
Statutory Material Cited
1
Gronow v Gronow
[1979] HCA 63
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18
Lovell v Lovell
[1950] HCA 52
Cited Sections