Gilles & Irby

In the case of Gilles & Irby, the appellant mother, Ms Gilles, appealed against the orders made by Rees J on 9 March 2015, which included placing her and her child, B, on the Family Law Watchlist. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. The mother argued that the trial judge did not adequately explain the orders to her, which she claimed was crucial as she was self-represented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had an obligation to clarify the orders sought, to explain those orders to the self-represented mother, and to provide her an opportunity to consider and respond. The court examined whether the trial judge's actions complied with the principles of procedural fairness, particularly under the Family Law Act 1975 and relevant case law.

The Full Court found that the trial judge had indeed an obligation to clarify the orders sought, to explain those orders to Ms Gilles, and to give her a chance to consider and respond to them. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that a self-represented party fully understands the implications of the orders being made against them. The Full Court concluded that the trial judge did not fulfil these obligations, leading to a breach of procedural fairness.

As a result, the court granted the mother's application for leave to appeal the order to restrain her from leaving Australia, allowed the appeal against that order, and set it aside. However, the court dismissed the mother's application for leave to appeal the remaining orders made by Rees J. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs of the appeal.