WESTLAKE & WESTLAKE

In the matter of *Westlake & Westlake*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application filed by the father. The father sought various orders, including leave to remove the proceedings to the High Court of Australia, leave to request the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and Queensland to complain about the Legal Aid Office and intervene in the proceedings, and leave to inform and discuss the matter with certain individuals. The mother sought costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the father required leave to apply to the High Court, whether a duty arose under s 78B of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) requiring notification to the Attorneys-General, whether the father needed leave to communicate with specific individuals, and whether the father should be ordered to pay the mother's costs.

Forrest J determined that the father did not require leave from the Family Court to apply to the High Court. The court also found that no s 78B duty arose as the proceedings did not involve a matter arising under the Constitution or its interpretation, noting that the Attorneys-General had previously been notified and chosen not to intervene. Regarding communication, the father was not required to obtain leave to communicate with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Queensland Minister for Child Safety, but he was prohibited from discussing matters with the Hon Julia Gillard and Mr Erikson that would contravene s 121 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court held that impecuniosity was not a bar to ordering costs and that the father, having been wholly unsuccessful, should pay the mother's costs.

Consequently, Forrest J dismissed the father's application in a case and ordered the father to pay the mother $500 on account of her costs.