Patricks & Simpkin

In the matter of *Patricks & Simpkin*, heard before Justice Fowler, the applicant sought to have a decision made by a first instance judge reconsidered by a different judge. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's dissatisfaction with the initial judicial determination and their apparent attempt to relitigate the same application before a new judicial officer.

The primary legal issue before the court was the proper procedural avenue for a party dissatisfied with a first instance decision in family law proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant's chosen method of seeking a review was appropriate, or if a formal appeal to a higher court was the mandated procedure. The court also considered the application of section 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the publication of reports.

Justice Fowler reasoned that the applicant's attempt to have the same application heard by a different judge was procedurally improper. The correct course of action for a party aggrieved by a first instance decision is to lodge an appeal to the Full Court. However, the court granted the applicant leave, pursuant to section 121(9)(d) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, to publish the reports of Dr R and Dr W to Dr M, an Area Health Service professional, to facilitate the preparation of a further report.

Consequently, the court dismissed the father's Application in a Case filed on 12 June 2008, save for the specific leave granted for the publication of the medical reports.