Dowling & Molloy

The appeal concerned decisions made by a Family Court judge regarding children. The primary dispute involved allegations of judicial bias and the conduct of the trial by the parties' legal representatives. The appeal was brought before Kay, Warnick, and May JJ.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's decision concerning the children was plainly wrong, necessitating appellate intervention. Additionally, the court considered an application to adduce further evidence, assessing its admissibility in children's cases, particularly in light of the principles established in *CDJ v VAJ*.

The court reiterated well-established principles regarding appeals from discretionary judgments, emphasising the significant width of discretion afforded to trial courts and the caution appellate courts must exercise. Citing *Bellenden*, *Norbis v Norbis*, *Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation v The Commonwealth*, *Gronow & Gronow*, and *CDJ & VAJ*, the judges stressed that an appellate court should only interfere if a decision is plainly wrong or exceeds the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement. The court noted that trial judges often have an advantage over appellate courts due to their direct observation of witnesses and their opportunity to reflect on the entirety of the evidence. Regarding the application to adduce further evidence, the court allowed it, noting that the material sought to be adduced did not meet the requirements of *CDJ v VAJ*, but the application was not challenged by the respondent or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The appeal was dismissed.