TAB and RGP

The parties to this matter were TAB and RGP, with the case heard by Coleman J. The dispute concerned an appeal against a Federal Magistrate's refusal to grant a stay of orders relating to the residence of a child. The appellant argued that the Federal Magistrate had erred in refusing to stay the orders, which altered a long-established status quo, without providing adequate reasons for such a change.

The central legal issue before Coleman J was whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in refusing to grant a stay of the residence orders pending the hearing of the appeal. This involved considering the principles governing the grant of stays, particularly in circumstances where a significant change to a child's established living arrangements was being challenged. The court also had to consider the impact of further evidence, adduced by consent, on the determination of the child's best interests.

Coleman J found that the Federal Magistrate had indeed erred in refusing the stay without sufficient reasons, particularly given the disruption to the established status quo. However, notwithstanding this error, the court considered further evidence presented by consent pursuant to s 93A(2) of the relevant Act. This additional evidence led Coleman J to conclude that granting a stay pending the substantive appeal would not be in the child's best interests. The appeal was therefore dismissed, with costs reserved for the Full Court hearing the substantive appeal.