Whipp & Richards

The case of Whipp & Richards concerned an appeal against parenting orders made by Justice Watts in the Family Court of Australia. The appellant, the mother, contested the time-sharing arrangement with the respondent father, particularly the structure and duration of visits with the father in Australia and the United States, as well as the routine to be maintained during these visits. Additionally, the mother argued that the impact of these orders on her time with the child during Jewish holidays was not adequately considered. The mother further contended that the trial judge's exercise of discretion was flawed, that relevant facts, including expert evidence, were not taken into account, and that the resulting orders were manifestly unjust and plainly wrong. The mother also challenged the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge and questioned whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to order that she credit the father with half of the airfares he paid as an offset against any child support liability he may have.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the trial judge's discretion had miscarried, whether the trial judge adequately considered relevant facts and expert evidence, and whether the trial judge's reasons were adequate. The mother also contested the trial judge's jurisdiction to order a credit for airfares and argued that this order did not accord with natural justice. The father, on the other hand, argued that the credit order was intended to facilitate the child's time spent with him and that the trial judge's decision was within his jurisdiction. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion properly, provided adequate reasons, and had jurisdiction to make the credit order.

The Full Court found that the appeal was partially successful. The court allowed the appeal in part and set aside certain orders, specifically paragraph 33, which pertained to the credit for airfares. The court held that the trial judge's discretion had not miscarried but noted that the reasons provided were insufficient. The court ordered the mother to file submissions on the issue of the payment and apportionment of travel costs, specifying whether this issue should be redetermined by the Full Court or remitted for rehearing. The court also directed the mother to address the issue of costs in the appeal and any retrial. The father was then required to respond to the mother's submissions, with the mother having a further 14 days to file any reply submissions.