G v H

The case before the High Court of Australia concerned an appeal by the appellant, G, against a judgment of the Full Court. The dispute centred on whether the appellant had established a sufficient prima facie case to compel the respondent to undergo parentage testing. The appellant argued that the Full Court's reasoning, which implied a prima facie case from the respondent's refusal to undergo testing, was circular and unsupported by the primary judge's findings.

The central legal issue was whether the primary judge had made findings sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the respondent was the father of the child. The appellant contended that the primary judge's findings, particularly regarding the applicant's evidence and the number of other potential fathers, demonstrated that no such prima facie case had been established. The appellant also challenged the Full Court's reliance on the respondent's refusal to undergo testing as evidence of a prima facie case.

The appellant's argument focused on the primary judge's findings that even if the applicant's evidence were accepted at its highest, it would not be sufficient to exclude other male clients as potential fathers due to the large number involved and the possibility of contraceptive failure. Furthermore, the appellant highlighted the primary judge's expressed doubts about the applicant's credibility and her preparedness to tell untruths. The appellant submitted that these findings indicated a lack of a prima facie case, rendering the Full Court's reasoning flawed.