Mallory & Mallory

In the case of Mallory & Mallory, the appellant father appealed against the orders made by the primary judge in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. These orders reversed the residence of the children so that they would live with the respondent mother instead of the father. The father argued that the children were at risk in the care of the mother, while the mother contended that the father's behaviour was unreasonable towards her, and the children were at risk in the father's care. The father also asserted that there were fundamental differences between two findings made by the primary judge, which he argued were inconsistent.

The court found that although the primary judge's findings were different, they were not inconsistent. The court also noted that multiple expert witnesses were engaged in different circumstances during the proceeding, and that the father did not challenge the evidence from one of the expert witnesses at trial. As such, the court found that it was open for the primary judge to consider this evidence. The court further found that the primary judge appropriately considered the relevant sections under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and weighed the risk as alleged by each party. The court found no appealable error and dismissed the appeal.

In light of the wholly unsuccessful appeal, the court ordered that within seven days of the date of the order, the respondent mother must file and serve an itemised schedule of her costs of and incidental to the appeal, calculated at party/party scale rates. Within seven days thereafter, the appellant father must file and serve any submission objecting to the respondent’s itemised costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.