Q & L

The parties in this matter were Q and L. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The application was heard by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kay and Coleman of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the primary judge erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the impact of the proposed parenting orders on the child's right to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, as required by section 60CC(3)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The applicants also sought to argue that the primary judge had failed to give proper weight to the child's expressed wishes, contrary to section 60CC(3)(a)(ii).

The Full Court reasoned that the primary judge's reasons for judgment did not demonstrate a sufficient engagement with the statutory considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975*. Specifically, the Court found that the primary judge's focus on the practicalities of the proposed arrangements, while relevant, did not adequately address the fundamental principle of the child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. The Court emphasised that a failure to properly consider this statutory requirement constitutes an error of law.

The Full Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made by the primary judge and remitting the matter for redetermination by a different judge of the Family Court.