DEFREY & RADNOR

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge WJ Neville considered an application by the Father to re-open proceedings following consent orders made in 2015. The Mother was the respondent. The dispute concerned issues raised by the Father regarding the 2015 consent orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Father had demonstrated a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant re-opening the 2015 consent orders, applying the principles established in *Rice v Asplund*. The court also considered the nature of the issues raised by the Father in light of the absence of any further applications filed since the 2015 orders.

Judge Neville reasoned that the issues raised by the Father appeared to be more about procedural and logistical refinements of the existing orders rather than a material change in circumstances. The lack of any subsequent applications since 2015 further supported this view. Consequently, the Father's application to re-open the proceedings was dismissed. The court ordered the Father to pay the Mother's costs. However, the court also made orders requiring the parties to provide an agreed form of orders regarding obtaining a passport for the child and the provision of information about the child's non-school activities within 14 days. If agreement was not reached on these specific matters, the parties were to attend mediation and, if necessary, arbitration, with costs to be borne equally. For any other parenting order issues, mediation was to be attempted first, followed by arbitration if no agreement was reached, with costs again to be borne equally.