Green v Knowles

Link copied
Case Copied 2 min read

GREEN
v
KNOWLES & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 147
M6/2011

  1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court (Bryant CJ, Boland and Thackray JJ), which on 15 December 2010 dismissed his appeal from parenting orders and costs orders made by the primary judge (Mushin J).

  2. The applicant and first respondent were married and had two children together, but separated in January 2002.  The applicant and first respondent are both legal practitioners.  The applicant commenced proceedings in the Family Court seeking various parenting orders pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Both the applicant and the first respondent were represented by counsel at the 16 day trial, except for the last four days of the trial when the applicant represented himself.

  3. The applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court from the parenting orders and costs orders made by the primary judge.  Amongst the numerous grounds of appeal raised by the applicant, he submitted that he was denied natural justice by the primary judge; that the primary judge had failed to disqualify himself for apprehended bias; and that the primary judge made several errors concerning findings of fact.  The Full Court unanimously dismissed the applicant's appeal and gave comprehensive reasons for doing so.

  4. The applicant seeks to re-agitate in this Court several of the grounds of appeal he raised before the Full Court.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision.  Therefore, special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

  5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

W.M.C. Gummow
8 September 2011
S.M. Kiefel
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Green v Knowles and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] HCASL 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Green v Knowles and Another involves a dispute between the applicant, Green, and the first respondent, Knowles, regarding parenting orders and costs orders made in the Family Court. The case was appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, which dismissed the appeal. Green now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The legal issues in the case include whether the primary judge denied Green natural justice, whether the primary judge should have disqualified himself for apprehended bias, and whether the primary judge made errors in findings of fact.

The Full Court considered the grounds of appeal raised by Green and dismissed the appeal, providing comprehensive reasons for doing so. The Full Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of its decision. The High Court similarly found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision and refused special leave to appeal. The High Court found that the Full Court had adequately considered the issues and that there was no miscarriage of justice that warranted special leave to appeal.

The High Court also considered whether special leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of an error of law or a novel point of law. The Court found that there was no such error or point of law in the case. The Court also considered whether special leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of the importance of the issue or the public interest. The Court found that the case did not involve an issue of sufficient importance or public interest to warrant special leave to appeal.

The High Court therefore refused special leave to appeal with costs. The Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision and that there was no miscarriage of justice that warranted special leave to appeal. The Court also found that there was no error of law or novel point of law in the case, and that the case did not involve an issue of sufficient importance or public interest to warrant special leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.