Dobbs & Brayson (No. 2)

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning parenting orders. The dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent regarding parenting arrangements for their child. The core of the appeal concerned whether the trial judge had afforded the appellant procedural fairness in the conduct of the trial, particularly in relation to the application of Division 12A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the appellant had provided valid consent to the application of Division 12A, given that the division could only operate with the parties' consent. The Court was required to determine the meaning of "consent" and "informed consent" in this context, and whether the appellant's consent was fully informed. Furthermore, the Court considered whether the appellant, as an unrepresented litigant, had been denied natural justice and procedural fairness by being prevented from making further submissions, cross-examining the respondent, and presenting subpoenaed material to the trial judge.

The Full Court reasoned that the appellant's consent to the procedure under Division 12A was not a fully informed consent because the trial judge had not explained the procedure to be adopted for determining the disputed issues. Applying the principles outlined in *Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines* (2001) FLC 93-072, the Court found that the appellant had been denied procedural fairness and natural justice. This denial stemmed from the appellant not being given the opportunity to fully participate in the proceedings, including the right to cross-examine and present evidence.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a re-trial was ordered. Certificates were granted under the *Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981* (Cth) to each party for the appeal and the re-trial, reflecting the finding of an error of law.