Nada & Nettle

Nada and Nettle were involved in an appeal concerning the relocation of their child. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The mother, Nada, had unilaterally relocated the child to a new location without prior consultation or agreement from Nettle, the father. Nettle was not informed of the relocation until just before a contravention hearing, and the court was not made aware of the relocation until a directions hearing prior to the contravention hearing. The case arose from a contravention application filed by Nettle.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had followed the "legislative pathway" as required by the Family Law Act, and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the best interests of the child. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge should have given the mother a warning about giving evidence regarding legal advice, and whether the trial judge should have called a witness or instructed the mother to call the maternal grandfather.

The court found that the trial judge had followed the correct legislative pathway and had adequately considered the best interests of the child. The court also found that there was no need for the trial judge to give the mother a warning about giving evidence regarding legal advice, as the evidence was not inadmissible. Furthermore, the court found that there was no need for the trial judge to call a witness or instruct the mother to call the maternal grandfather, as the evidence presented was sufficient to make a decision.

The appeal against the orders of Judge Neville made on 1 November 2013 was dismissed. The parties were instructed to exchange submissions as to the costs of the appeal within 21 days of the date of delivery of the judgment, and to file those submissions seven days thereafter.