SL & EHL

The case of *SL & EHL* concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The applicants, SL and EHL, sought to challenge an order made by a judge of the Family Court concerning parenting arrangements for their child. The primary dispute revolved around the appropriate time the child should spend with each parent, and the specific orders that should govern their future contact.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Family Court judge had erred in law or fact when making the parenting orders. Specifically, the applicants contended that the judge failed to adequately consider certain evidence and that the resulting orders were not in the best interests of the child, as required by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was therefore required to assess the evidence presented at the original hearing and determine if the judge's findings and conclusions were reasonably open to them.

Justice Warnick, in considering the application for leave to appeal, reviewed the evidence and the judge's reasons for decision. The court applied the principles established in *Kallinicos v Cattlin* [2004] FamCA 1160, which outlines the criteria for granting leave to appeal in family law matters, emphasising that leave should only be granted where there is a reasonably arguable case of error. Justice Warnick found that the original judge had properly considered the relevant evidence and had made findings that were open to them on the material before the court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.