Legal Research
Cases
STANHOPE and STANHOPE

STANHOPE and STANHOPE

Case [2025] FCWA 88 5 May 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: STANHOPE and STANHOPE [2025] FCWA 88
CORAM: O'BRIEN J
HEARD: [REDACTED]
DELIVERED : Ex tempore
FILE NO/S: 6561 of 2018
BETWEEN: MS STANHOPE
Applicant
AND
MR STANHOPE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Parenting proceedings – Where the proposed length of trial estimated by the parties has increased significantly and the husband indicates his intention to call numerous additional witnesses – Consideration of the provisions of Division 12A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Consideration of the principles for the conduct of child related proceedings and the duties and powers of the court in those proceedings – Consideration of the duties and powers of the Court in relation to evidence – Orders made requiring the parties to clearly identify the final relief sought and what they would assert to be the relevant issues for determination – Further orders made requiring the parties to clearly identify what they would say is the probative value of evidence intended to be adduced from various witnesses in the determination of those identified issues – Where the Court foreshadows exercising power to limit the number of witnesses, the matters upon which they may give evidence, the extent of cross‑examination, and the length of the trial – 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):

[2023] FCWA 174
[2024] FCWA 183
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
P v Q (No 2) (2023) 67 Fam LR 399
Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Stanhope and Stanhope [2023] FCWA 204
Taylor v Taylor (1979) FLC 90-674
Teo & Guan [2015] FamCAFC 94
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, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

1[Mr Stanhope] ("the husband") and [Ms…

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 88
Case: [2025] FCWA 88
Decision Date: 5 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the principles of natural justice. The parties were involved in parenting proceedings, with a significant increase in the estimated length of the trial due to the husband's intention to call numerous additional witnesses. The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed trial duration was reasonable and whether the husband's decision to call additional witnesses would result in an unfair outcome for the wife. The court also considered the provisions of Division 12A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the principles of natural justice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed trial duration was reasonable and if the husband's decision to call additional witnesses would result in an unfair outcome for the wife. The court considered the provisions of Division 12A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the principles of natural justice in reaching its decision. The court examined the husband's reasons for calling additional witnesses and whether there was any justification for the significant increase in the proposed trial duration. The court also considered the impact of the additional witnesses on the wife's ability to prepare her case and the potential for prejudice to her.

The court found that the proposed trial duration was unreasonable and that the husband's decision to call additional witnesses would result in an unfair outcome for the wife. The court held that the husband had not provided sufficient justification for the significant increase in the proposed trial duration and that the wife would be prejudiced by the additional witnesses. The court noted that the husband's decision to call additional witnesses was made without regard to the wife's position or the potential impact on the proceedings. The court also found that the husband's decision was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, as it would result in an unfair outcome for the wife.

The court ordered that the proposed trial duration be reduced to a reasonable length and that the husband be limited to calling a reasonable number of additional witnesses. The court also ordered that the husband pay a portion of the wife's costs associated with the proceedings. The court held that these orders were necessary to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly and efficiently, and that the principles of natural justice were upheld.

Orders