STANHOPE and STANHOPE - [2025] FCWA 157

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: STANHOPE and STANHOPE [2025] FCWA 157
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: [REDACTED]
DELIVERED : 10 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S: 6561 of 2018
BETWEEN: MS STANHOPE
Applicant
AND
MR STANHOPE
Respondent

Catchwords:

PARENTING – Approach to child related proceedings – Where the parties initially estimated that three days would be required for trial – Where that estimate increased first to five days, then to 10 days, then further – Consideration of the principles set out in s 102NE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the mandatory requirements of s 102NH - Consideration of the powers granted by s 102NN to define matters in relation to which evidence may be given, by whom evidence may be given, whether and if so how cross-examination is to be permitted and the imposition of time limits for evidence and submissions – Consideration of broader case management principles including the obligation of the Court to ensure that its limited resources are used efficiently – Where permission to rely on various affidavits already sworn is refused – Where various proposed witnesses are not permitted to give evidence at trial – Where leave to subpoena various other witnesses is declined – Where a trial plan is imposed – Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr K
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Ms Q

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Law Firm C
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Law Firm G

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

[2024] FCWA 183
[2025] FCWA 141
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
P v Q (No 2) (2023) 67 Fam LR 399
Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249
Re F Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Stanhope and Stanhope [2023] FCWA 204
Stanhope and Stanhope [2025] FCWA 88
Taylor v Taylor (1979) FLC 90-674
Teo & Guan (2015) FLC 93-653
The State of Queensland and Anor v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Stanhope and Stanhope has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This copy of the Court's Reason for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)) or to record a variation of the orders pursuant to r 311 of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading STANHOPE and STANHOPE

Details

AGLC: STANHOPE and STANHOPE [2025] FCWA 157
Case: [2025] FCWA 157
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The matter between Stanhope and Stanhope was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centred around parenting arrangements for their child, with both parties seeking to have their respective proposals for the child’s future care upheld. The legal issues before the court included determining the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the child and assessing the evidence presented by both parents regarding their capacity and suitability to provide care.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing particularly on the principles set out in section 102NE of the Family Law Act 1975. This section emphasises the need to give priority to the best interests of the child, taking into account various factors including the child’s need for a meaningful relationship with both parents and the child’s adjustment capacity. The court also had to balance the competing interests of the parents and the need to provide a stable and supportive environment for the child.

In reaching its decision, the court found that while both parents had presented compelling arguments, the evidence did not support the need for a lengthy trial. The court noted that the initial estimate of a three-day trial had escalated significantly, and it was essential to avoid unnecessary prolongation of proceedings, which could be detrimental to the child. The court ordered a more streamlined approach and directed the parties to attempt to resolve their disputes through mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods. The final orders reflected the court's commitment to ensuring that the child's best interests were prioritised and that the proceedings were concluded in a timely and efficient manner.

Orders