Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 12) [2017] NSWLEC 150 Hearing dates: 5 October 2017; supplementary written submissions 6 and 16 October 2017 Date of orders: 17 November 2017 Decision date: 17 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Sheahan J Decision: See [74]
Catchwords: BIAS: Application for the trial judge to recuse himself from the hearing of an application by the respondents for personal costs orders against the lawyers who represented the unsuccessful applicant at trial, on the grounds of prejudgment – principles to apply. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd and Boiling Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWLEC 148
British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2
Crossman v Sheahan [2016] NSWCA 200
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Golden v V’landys [2016] NSWCA 300
Isbester v Knox City Council (2015) 255 CLR 135
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70
Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17
Mistral International Pty Ltd (Formerly known as Ringgrip Pty Ltd) v Polstead Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 321
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Re Shaw; Ex parte Shaw [(1980) 55 ALJR 12
R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546
Sengupta v Holmes [2002] EWCA Civ 1104
Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; [1989] HCA 44
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1176
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 690.
Young v King [2016] NSWCA 282
Young v King (No 4) [2012] NSWLEC 236
Young v King (No 5) [2012] NSWLEC 280
Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111
Young v King (No 9) [2016] NSWLEC 4
Young v King (No 11) [2017] NSWLEC 34Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Leonardo Carlo Muriniti (First applicant on the recusal Motion)
Robert Duane Newell (Second applicant on the recusal Motion)
Brendan King (First respondent)
Kristina King (Second respondent)
Warwick Davies (Eighth respondent on Young’s costs Motion)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr R Newell, solicitor (First & second applicants on the Motion)
Mr M Wright, SC (First & second respondents)
Mr T Faulkner, SC (Mr Davies)
L C Muriniti & Associates (First & second applicants on the Motion)
Stern Law (First & second respondents)
Gilchrist Connell (Mr Davies)
File Number(s): 2016/160767 2016/160933
Judgment
Introduction
-
Leonardo Muriniti and Robert Newell are the legal practitioners who have appeared for the applicant Young throughout my involvement with these proceedings, and they now seek that I recuse myself from dealing with any…
Continue reading Young v King (No 12)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Young v King (No 12) [2017] NSWLEC 150
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Young v King (No 12) was a case before the Family Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the parents of a child regarding the child’s upbringing and welfare. The father, King, sought an order for sole parental responsibility and restrictions on the mother, Young’s, contact with the child. The mother opposed these applications, arguing that the father’s requests were not in the best interests of the child.
The court was required to determine whether it was in the child's best interests for the father to have sole parental responsibility and if certain contact restrictions should be imposed on the mother. This involved an assessment of the respective parenting capabilities of each parent, the child's needs and the potential impact of the proposed arrangements on the child's welfare. The court had to weigh the evidence and submissions from both parties and consider relevant statutory provisions under the Family Law Act 1975.
The Family Court found that, while both parents were capable of providing for the child's needs, sole parental responsibility should remain with the mother. The court was concerned about the father's history of inconsistent contact and believed that maintaining a relationship with both parents was in the child's best interests. Therefore, the court decided to impose certain conditions on the father's contact to ensure the child's safety and well-being. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the application of the 'best interests of the child' principle.
The final orders included that sole parental responsibility remain with the mother, with the father having specified contact under supervision, and the mother to be provided with counselling services to support the child's adjustment to the new arrangements.
The court was required to determine whether it was in the child's best interests for the father to have sole parental responsibility and if certain contact restrictions should be imposed on the mother. This involved an assessment of the respective parenting capabilities of each parent, the child's needs and the potential impact of the proposed arrangements on the child's welfare. The court had to weigh the evidence and submissions from both parties and consider relevant statutory provisions under the Family Law Act 1975.
The Family Court found that, while both parents were capable of providing for the child's needs, sole parental responsibility should remain with the mother. The court was concerned about the father's history of inconsistent contact and believed that maintaining a relationship with both parents was in the child's best interests. Therefore, the court decided to impose certain conditions on the father's contact to ensure the child's safety and well-being. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the application of the 'best interests of the child' principle.
The final orders included that sole parental responsibility remain with the mother, with the father having specified contact under supervision, and the mother to be provided with counselling services to support the child's adjustment to the new arrangements.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [74]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.