Lysons & Lysons

The appeal was brought by the father against a decision of a Family Court judge regarding their child. The father sought to change the child's surname and also challenged a provision in the orders that allowed the child to be baptised if a priest deemed it appropriate. The appeal was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in refusing the father's application to change the child's surname. It also needed to consider whether the primary judge failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the order for the child's baptism. The father had not made submissions on the relevant considerations for the surname change at the trial, but he argued that the baptism order was made without sufficient procedural fairness.

The court found that no error was established in the refusal to change the child's surname as the father had not made the relevant submissions at trial. However, it was determined that the baptism order was made without sufficient procedural fairness as neither party nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer expressly sought such an order, and the prospect of such an order being made was not adequately foreshadowed. Consequently, the court set aside the order for the child's baptism.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed in relation to the surname change, but the order for the child's baptism was set aside due to procedural unfairness.