Lindros v Biesek & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 372

[2006] HCATrans 372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M8 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

PETER ROHAN CAMERON LINDROS

Applicant

and

KRISTINE MICHELLE BIESEK

First Respondent

CHILD REPRESENTATIVE

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.55 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant (“the father”) seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.  By those orders the Full Court allowed an appeal by the first respondent (“the mother”) and set aside orders of a single judge of the Family Court (Guest J) ordering, among other things, that the child of the father and mother reside with the father, and that the father have the sole responsibility for the day to day care, welfare and development of the child.  The Full Court remitted the matter for rehearing.

The Full Court’s decision turned on the application of established and accepted principles to the particular facts of the case.  No disputed point of general principle would conveniently fall for consideration if special leave to appeal were to be granted.  There being an order for rehearing, it is not in the interests of justice that special leave be granted.

The second respondent, the Child Representative, does not seek costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.  I publish that disposition.

AT 9.56 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED