AJA v GJA [2005] HCATrans 686 (8 September 2005)

--

AJA v GJA [2005] HCATrans 686 (8 September 2005)

Last Updated: 20 September 2005

[2005] HCATrans 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M48 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

AJA

Applicant

and

GJA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.24 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Family Court of Australia dismissing, for the most part, the applicant’s appeal against orders made by Bennett FM on 23 August 2003 requiring her to authorise a school that was attended by her child to provide her former husband with information concerning the child’s schooling. The Family Court, constituted by a single judge (Kay J), was exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred by s 94AAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

It was contended by the applicant before the learned Federal Magistrate that the best interests of the child were not served by the provision of such information to her former husband. In arriving at her decision, Bennett FM relied upon evidence provided by the principal of the school attended by the child, who indicated that he was not aware that the child had any special emotional needs. Her Honour also rejected evidence given by the child’s general medical practitioner indicating that the child did not wish to have any contact with his father. That evidence did not establish, however, how the release of information concerning the child’s academic progress to his father would have detrimental effect upon the child’s health.

Before Kay J, the applicant took issue with the treatment by Bennett FM of the evidence before her and the process conducted by her Honour. Kay J gave detailed reasons, emphasising in particular the limited role played by appellate courts in reviewing discretionary decisions and concluding that the orders made by Bennett FM should not be discharged.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of Bennett FM and of Kay J. No question appropriate for the grant of special leave arises in the present case. Nor are there sufficient prospects of success in any appeal from the decision of Kay J to this Court. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.26 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED