Legal Research
Cases
Rainaldo & Rainaldo

Rainaldo & Rainaldo

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 655

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Rainaldo & Rainaldo [2023] FedCFamC2F 655
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 655
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Rainaldo & Rainaldo [2023] FedCFamC2F 655

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

RAINALDO & RAINALDO [2020] FamCA 921
Citation 1

…ther not permitted to commence fresh parenting proceedings Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 68C Cases cited: Rainaldo & Rainaldo [2020] FamCA 921 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90–725 Sanders & Sanders (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 59 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 49 Date of hearing: 24…
Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCAFC 31
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…SPS ”) (which explanation was approved in Marsden & Winch (2009) 42 Fam LR 1 (“ Marsden ”) at [41]–[47]; Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCAFC 31 at [46] and Poisat at [40]) as follows: 81. ... [W]hen the threshold question described in Rice and Asplund is determined as a preliminary matter, it remains a determination “…
SPS & PLS [2008] FamCAFC 16
Citation 3 (Para 11)

…d by s 60CC of the Act may also, obviously, be relevant. The nature of the proceeding was aptly described by Warnick J in SPS and PLS [2008] FamCAFC 16; (2008) FLC 93-363 (“ SPS ”) (which explanation was approved in Marsden & Winch (2009) 42 Fam LR 1 (“ Marsden ”) at [41]–[47]; Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCAFC 31 at…
King & Finneran [2001] FamCA 344
Citation 4 (Para 11)

…than to allow the application to continue. (Emphasis added) 41The ICL referred me to the decision of King & Finneran [2001] FamCA 344; (2001) FLC 93-079, where the application was dismissed for lacking a significant change in circumstance. It echoes what was said by Warnick J above, and particularly that the Rice…
Trewitt & Brock [2021] FedCFamC1A 9
Citation 5 (Para 11)

…interests. That consideration arises squarely in this matter. 38In a recent decision of the Appeal Division in the matter of Trewitt & Brock [2021] FedCFamC1A 9 (“ Trewitt ”), there was a discussion about whether dismissal of an application such as the father’s, is a parenting order with the meaning of s 64B(1) of th…
Sanders & Sanders (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 59
Citation 6 (Para 11)

…In relation to the so called rule in Rice & Asplund , the Court refers to a discussion of legal principle in Sanders & Sanders (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 59 where Brasch J stated: 35The application by the father is an application for a parenting order and, thus, the Act mandates that such matters as are relevant pursuant…

AI Chat coming soon