Most people decide to go to a movie first, then look to
see what movies are playing, then choose based on their genre preferences, and only look at reviews to break a tie if there are several films of approximately
equal appeal.
As can be
seen in this
appeal, the creation of national classes also raises the issue of relations between
equal but different superior courts in a federal system in which civil procedure and the administration of justice are under provincial jurisdiction.
FAMILY LAW —
APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dism
APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal ¬ Appeal dism
APPEAL — INTERIM PARENTING — Where there is nothing anomalous about the primary judge finding, by virtue of s 61DA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)(«the Act»), that it would «not be appropriate» to apply the presumption in favour of
equal shared parental responsibility, while going on to make an order for
equal shared parental responsibility ¬ Where it can be
seen that the primary judge addressed what was necessary from s 65DAA of the Act, given the parameters of the dispute, and how the parties» respective cases were presented — Where the primary judge adequately and appropriately considered what she is obliged to in determining where the best interests of the children lie, bearing in mind that that consideration is framed by the parameters of the issues in dispute, and how each party has presented their case — Where there is no merit in the grounds of
appeal ¬ Appeal dism
appeal ¬ Appeal dism
appeal ¬
Appeal dism
Appeal dism
Appeal dismissed.
See also the emphasis on «
equal and due treatment» in the Canadian Supreme Court's recent discussion of placing «due weight on Aboriginal perspectives» and ensuring its supporting evidence an «
equal footing» in Mitchell v Minister of Natural Revenue [2001] 1 SCR 911, relied upon the State of Victoria in the present
appeal as correctly setting out the applicable approach: Written Submissions of the First Respondent (State of Victoria), at 16.