VG & M

This matter concerned an appeal by the mother against orders made by a trial judge concerning her child. The core of the dispute revolved around the mother's desire to relocate overseas with the child and the father's opposition to this, or at least to the timing of such a departure. The appeal was heard by Finn, and May & Boland JJ.

The legal issues before the appellate court included whether the trial judge erred in restraining the mother from leaving Australia with the child until a specific date, and how to address the question of future contact between the child and the father should the mother depart. The court also considered the appropriate orders regarding the costs of the appeal.

The appellate judges found that the trial judge's decision to impose a restraint on the mother's departure was a reasonable attempt to balance the child's needs with the competing interests of both parents, and was made in the child's best interests. They noted that a judge is not bound to follow expert opinion slavishly, especially when the reasons for deviating from a recommendation are explained. Regarding future contact, the court acknowledged that the mother's requested orders differed from those made at trial. However, as no submissions had been made on this specific issue, with the mother requesting immediate departure or departure in July 2005 should the appeal succeed, the court determined that if either party wished to litigate future contact, a further hearing based on current circumstances and future plans would be necessary, with such applications to be given priority.

The appeal was dismissed. The court declined to make an order for costs, despite the unsuccessful nature of the appeal, acknowledging that the appeal had substance, involved important issues, and that both parties would incur significant future expenses related to contact.