KERSON & BLAKE

In the case of Kerson & Blake, the mother sought to relocate to the United States of America with their children, a move opposed by the father. The Family Court was tasked with deciding on the relocation application, and ultimately, the primary judge ruled against the mother's proposal. The mother subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had erred in their assessment and had not properly considered all the evidence.

The appeal court had to determine whether the primary judge's decision was legally sound and whether the judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles when evaluating the relocation application. The court found that the primary judge had given determinative weight to a particular finding, which did not consider all the evidence. As a result, the orders made by the primary judge were not supported by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

The appeal was successful due to an error of law, and there was no reason to deviate from the standard cost provisions outlined in section 117(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which stipulates that each party should bear their own costs. Consequently, no orders were made regarding costs. The application to adduce further evidence was dismissed as the matter was to be remitted for rehearing. The final orders included dismissing the application for further evidence, allowing the appeal against the orders of Gill J, setting aside those orders, remitting the matter for a hearing by a different judge, and making no orders as to costs.