On 30 September 2011 Australian court officials from the Federal Court and Family Court met with delegates from the Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta, for the signing of the Justice’s Memorandum of Understanding.
In an initiative funded by the Australian Government since 2008, the Australian-Indonesian partnership has allowed courts in both countries to share experiences regarding access to justice. This has brought with it enhanced judicial capacity and improvements to the courts business processes, like the handling of cases and the recording of court judgments.
‘It is very important to the development of all courts to share our experiences and to look for ways to improve access to justice particularly for those in the community who are underprivileged and marginalised. Much of the Family Court’s work in Indonesia has focused on improving court access for women headed households and I am very pleased with the progress that has been made’ said Chief Justice Diana Bryant.
According to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia, the Hon Dr Harifin A. Tumpa SH MH, ‘there have been great gains from this close relationship, with both countries facing similar issues in improving access to justice for the average person’.
The Office of Development Effectiveness has completed a review of the Australian-Indonesian partnership and a report is expected to be released in early 2012.
The Family Court’s Annual Report was tabled in Parliament on 14 October 2011. The report outlines in great detail the performance of the Court in terms of its financial position, judicial services, workload and administrative support. It also outlines various business initiatives and achievements that have been made by the Court in the 2010–11 financial year.
While the number of applications for final orders filed in the Family Court fell slightly in 2010–11 (by 443), this trend is expected as more first instance work continues to be filed in the Federal Magistrates Court. The progressive shift in the balance of workload between the two courts has resulted in the Family Court becoming a smaller court which now manages all appeals and deals with the most complex family law cases, most of which involve international family law (including Hague Convention abduction matters) and an aspect of family violence, mental illness and/or substance abuse. My view is that the current size of the Court should be maintained so that the Court can dispose of its first instance and appeal work effectively. This objective was achieved during the 2010–11 financial year, with the Court achieving one of its most important targets of having more than 100 per cent clearance rate. This shows increased output relative to a level of incoming workload.
Another area of particular importance is in the timely delivery of reserved judgments. The Court is close to its target of having more than 75 per cent of reserved judgments delivered within three months of the conclusion of trial. Although the Court has over recent years improved in this area (including an improvement of approximately 20 per cent this financial year), the Court will continue to closely monitor this issue.
The Court can be proud of the many achievements that have been made during the year which are outlined in detail in the annual report. While improved reporting systems may not obviously seem to contribute to better service for litigants, they most certainly do. The Court dedicated resources to improve its reporting systems which will enable us to better identify and compare the workload of each registry and as a result, a national calendar has been introduced. This involves judges in less busy registries committing themselves to sit in the busier registries on an organised basis throughout the year. Another significant achievement throughout the year has been the continued development and use of the Commonwealth Courts Portal by practitioners and clients. The number of registered users continues to increase, from 5900 in 2009 to 57602 registered users in June 2011. A full Commonwealth Courts Portal update can be found on page 8.
The Court’s Annual Report is available at www.familycourt.gov.au.
Under the guidance of the Court’s CEO, Richard Foster, in 2008 the Court introduced an initiative that focuses on the input and development of young people employed by the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Over the past three years the Young Employees Advisory Group (YEAG) has developed a range of projects which are aimed at improving service and contributing innovative ways of conducting court business. As a reflection on the hard work of these young staff members, it is very pleasing that this initiative has been announced as the winner of the 2011 Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration (AIJA) Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration.
In the middle of this year, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court conducted the Family Law User Satisfaction Survey in nearly all of the courts registries. It has been quite a few years since the courts have conducted a survey directly with their clients such as lawyers and litigants and it has been a very important process to undertake.
The ‘face-to-face’ interviews were conducted by university students with the various court users while present in the registries. In contrast to conducting a survey online or in writing, this method provided an opportunity for the person to provide extended feedback at the time they were attending to court-related business.
A report on the survey results is expected to be finalised within the next few months and a copy will be published on the courts’ websites. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised with some of the results of the survey, but as expected there are areas in which the courts can improve to better meet the expectations of court users. Very broadly, of the 1332 people surveyed, 86 per cent were generally satisfied with their overall visit to the courts and 92 per cent were satisfied with the service provided. While these figures are at first glance pleasing, further inspection of the data tells us that people whose matters involve substantive orders (such as children’s matters), and more specifically, who are respondents, are less likely to be as satisfied than those who are in court for divorce proceedings for example. Other areas that need improvement are explaining to litigants what is likely to happen during the proceedings, when the matter will begin and how long it is likely to take. More information on the survey can be found on page 11.
As reported in a recent media report, the Department of Finance and Deregulation is conducting a review of federal courts and tribunals under the Attorney-General’s portfolio. The review will consider options for improving the efficiency and flexibility in court and tribunal administration, including service delivery. The review is expected to be considered by the Government in 2012. No doubt the Government will be forthcoming with the outcome of the review and its recommendations in due course.
In late September representatives from the Family Court and the Federal Court met in Jakarta to renew the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice’s Memorandum of Understanding. Funded by the Australian Government, the partnership has enabled courts in both countries to share experiences regarding access to justice, enhancing judicial capacity and improving court business processes such as the handling of cases and recording of court judgments. The Family Court has done an extraordinary amount of good work particularly with the Indonesian Religious Courts, in improving court access for women headed households.
In October I attended two important meetings. The Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand and the National Judicial College of Australia held a conference on judicial leadership for all heads of jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand in Hobart.
Later in October I attended the Fourth Asia/Pacific Regional Conference organised by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in Manila. Part of the conference was devoted to commercial Conventions and part to children’s Conventions. There are many countries in our region that have not ratified the Abduction Convention in particular and this was a good opportunity to encourage their participation. Some countries like Japan are close to finalising their legislation to implement the Convention. One important resolution to come from the meeting was agreement for the establishment of a regional office of the Permanent Bureau to be located in Hong Kong.
As this is the final issue of the Family Court Bulletin for 2011, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Court’s dedicated judges and staff for their continued effort in providing an excellent service to the many thousands of people who come to the Court seeking help to resolve their dispute. It is a very difficult area of law to work in, and most importantly, we understand that it is difficult for the people who come before us. We try never to lose sight of that fact and continually strive to provide a better service for the Australian community.
May you all enjoy a safe and happy Christmas and New Year.
Chief Justice Diana Bryant
This appeal raised two important questions. First whether it is necessary or appropriate that the Court have a pre-hearing to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter. The Full Court answered this question in the negative, noting that the question is not whether the Court will exercise its jurisdiction as some preliminary question; it is a question of whether it is just and equitable to make an order. The second question raised in the appeal was in what circumstances the Court should make an order for property settlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) where a marriage is still intact, but where a physical separation has been forced upon the parties by reason of one of the parties’ health. The latter question has particular relevance in contemporary Australian society and the Full Court held there is no requirement that the Court make a final order for property settlement that would alter the interests of parties, in property on a final basis, in such cases. In reaching this conclusion the Full Court noted there are a number of provisions in the Act which give the Court power to make interim orders, make orders for maintenance, and to adjourn the proceedings; rather than to determine the proceedings on a final basis, if required, to achieve a result which is just and equitable.
The Full Court sitting at Perth was asked to consider an appeal from orders of a magistrate which raised the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, the Court should make an order for property settlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) where a marriage is still intact but where a physical separation has been forced upon the parties by reason of one of the parties’ health. The parties were both aged and the wife was required to be in a high care nursing home because of her frailty, both physical and mental. The husband wished to remain in the matrimonial home which was within his ability. The wife’s family sought orders that the matrimonial home be sold so that money could be spent on her care.
The magistrate dealt with the case in two discrete parts, first determining whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter; and second whether the Court should exercise the jurisdiction having regard to the fact that apart from any forced separation the marriage was still in tact. The learned magistrate answered both questions in the affirmative and made final property orders. Those orders then became the subject of appeal before the Full Court.
In determining the appeal, the Full Court emphasised the question is not whether the Court will exercise its jurisdiction as some preliminary question; it is a question of whether it is just and equitable to make an order. Once it is accepted that the Court has jurisdiction to make an order it must proceed to consider the relevant matters under s 79 including the matters under s 79(4) and s 75(2) when determining whether or not to make a particular order, or to dismiss an application making no order at all. The Full Court further noted that one of the matters relevant to the exercise of discretion under s 75(2)(o) is the fact that the parties marriage has not come to an end and a consideration of the overall justice and equity of making an order in favour of one of the parties. Section 79 gives the Court power to make ‘such order as it considers appropriate – altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property’. The Full Court noted that what is just and equitable having regard to the matters in s 79(4) and s 75(2) may include for example the fact that the parties have not separated other than in a physical sense. Those facts may be important in a particular case; but under the wide rubric of what is ‘just and equitable’.
The Full Court noted this reasoning is consistent with the decision of the majority in Sterling 1 and agreed with Kay J’s formulation in paragraph 28 that the specific issue is:
‘[W]hether within the provisions of s 79(1) it is appropriate to make an order where the marriage has not broken down, especially where such an order could not be seen to be for the benefit of the party who seeks the making of the order. A subsidiary question that needs to be asked is whether it is in all the circumstances just and equitable to make the order.’ (original emphasis)
The Full Court noted it must also be remembered that the Court, if not finally determining a property application, has power to make an interim order under s 80 and can also make a maintenance order either periodic or lump sum rather than a final order if that is thought to be appropriate.
The Full Court also found the magistrate’s findings were against the evidence and the weight of the evidence and that it was difficult to ascertain the reason why the magistrate came to her conclusion given the wife did not have a need for a property settlement as such and that her reasonable needs could be met in other ways, particularly by maintenance. In considering what was just and equitable under s 79 and s 75(2) the magistrate was required to consider the effect of these orders on the husband and the fact that it was an intact marriage. Other than the forced separation of the parties by virtue of the wife being in a nursing home, the husband wished to remain in the home which had been the parties’ home for in excess of 35 years. The Full Court observed there were many aspects of the application which did not require an immediate order finally altering the interests of the parties in their property and particularly so where it would require the husband to leave his home in which he was still residing.
As the Full Court determined to allow the appeal, and as it may be necessary that there be a re-hearing, their Honours were reluctant to comment at length in relation to certain grounds of appeal and the attached submissions, save as to convey that the rights of each party remain, including that property held by them be divided pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
Having determined the appeal should succeed on a number of grounds the Full Court set aside a number of the orders made by the magistrate and granted the parties cost certificates.
The Full Court made some important concluding observations in the case including that, as Kay J observed in Sterling, the Court will be required to deal with cases such as this with increasing frequency. The Full Court expressed the view that it is necessary for such applications to be considered fully having regard to the matters in ss 79 and 75(2) and without any predetermination as to whether or not the Court would exercise its discretion at all, for which there is no warrant. The Full Court further noted it is important that it be clear that there is no requirement that the Court make a final order for property settlement in such cases that would alter the interests of parties in property on a final basis especially when the marriage itself is not at an end. There are a number of provisions in the Act which give the Court power to make interim orders, make orders for maintenance and to adjourn the proceedings rather than to determine them on a final basis if the justice and equity of the case requires it.
1 Sterling & Sterling [2000] FamCA 1150.
This appeal highlighted what has become a significant matter of jurisprudential concern: the use of extrinsic material in decision making. Although the Full Court has in a number of cases cautioned against the use of such material and indicated how it is to be used (see Maluka & Maluka [2011] FamCAFC 72; SCVG & KLD [2011] FamCAFC 100), judges in a few instances and federal magistrates in numerous instances, are still continuing to place reliance upon research materials in a way which is a departure from more recognised and established ways of accepting evidence and expert opinion.
The Full Court was asked to consider an appeal from orders of a federal magistrate which raised the question whether the nature and extent of his Honour’s apparent reliance upon extrinsic materials was appropriate. Given the issue of principle which the appeal appeared to raise and, particularly, having regard to a series of decisions of the Full Court in which challenges of this nature have been raised, the Court referred the matter to a bench of three judges.
Shortly before the hearing was due to occur the Court was notified that the appeal was conceded by the respondent and the ICL, and that the issue which remained for the Court was limited to various applications for costs certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). Coleman J heard those applications as a single judge pursuant to a direction of the Chief Justice.
While Coleman J was not required to determine the substantive appeal, his Honour felt it necessary to make certain observations. His Honour noted that each of the appellant, the respondent and the ICL filed submissions in the appeal. His Honour noted a common theme pervaded the submissions of all parties, namely that the learned federal magistrate’s reliance upon extrinsic material constituted a denial of natural justice.
Coleman J further noted the recent unsuccessful special leave application in a case known as SCVG & KLD [2011] HCATrans 285, where their Honours Gummow and Bell JJ appear, from the transcript, to have accepted the importance in parenting proceedings in the Family Court of compliance with the rules of natural justice in relation to extrinsic materials.
Coleman J noted while the facts of the present case were materially different from those in SCVG & KLD [2011] FamCAFC 100, that in the latter case it had not been demonstrated that the undisturbed findings of fact, which were pivotal to the exercise of the federal magistrate’s discretion, were reliant solely upon such materials. They were consistent with such materials, but had an independent evidentiary foundation which was not successfully challenged in the Full Court.
In the present case, Coleman J noted that ‘inferentially, …in circumstances which may compromise observance of the principles of natural justice to extrinsic materials, it can, with considerable confidence, be concluded, as the Court does, that had this appeal been agitated to finality, it would have been successful.
Coleman J noted the appeal ‘would have succeeded on an issue of principle, namely, the learned Federal Magistrate’s erroneous reliance upon extrinsic materials in circumstances which offended the rules of natural justice’.
Coleman J made orders that the appeal be allowed, the orders of the federal magistrate be set aside, the matter be remitted for re-hearing and that the parties be granted costs certificate pursuant to Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.
The Attorney-General has requested that the Family Law Council consider and advise (by November 2011) on the following issues in relation to Indigenous and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) clients of the family law system:
The courts have been assisting with the review. The Family Law Courts’ report Indigenous Australians and the Family Law Courts will also feed into the review.
More information will be available in the next issue of Family Court Bulletin.
From June to October 2011 the Family Law Courts website received 438 309 visits. Of these visitors, 275 543 were accessing the website for the first time.
The most frequently requested Family Law Courts website pages were:
The three most common search key words on the Family Law Courts website were:
From June to October 2011 the Family Court of Australia’s website received 272 396 visits. Of these visitors, 125 996 were accessing the website for the first time.
The most frequently requested Family Court website pages were:
The three most common search key words on the Family Court of Australia website were:
Interest in the Commonwealth Courts Portal continues to grow, with increases in registrations and eFiling since the last issue of the Bulletin.
| July 2011 | October 2011 | Increase | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Registered law firms | 2538 | 2758 | 220 |
| Registered practitioners | 5186 | 5685 | 499 |
| Total registered family law users (incl SRLs) | 19284 | 22312 | 3028 |
| eFiled documents | July 2011 | October 2011 | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divorces | 10489 | 12973 | 2484 |
| Supplementary documents | 84387 | 112795 | 28408 |
| Initiating applications | 156 | 368 | 212 |
| Responses | 180 | 574 | 394 |
Major revamp for Portal homepage
In September 2011 the Portal underwent a major revamp with the following enhancements being implemented:
Global list of documents
This creates a single list of all documents on a file in reverse chronological order. This feature was implemented in November 2011. Future enhancements will include the ability to sort by document types such as affidavits, financial statement etc.
Subpoena information
This allows the current Casetrack subpoena screen to be replicated on the Portal so that users can check if leave to inspect has been granted. This was released in November 2011.
New Portal brochure and poster
The Portal brochure has been updated and a new poster has been produced to further promote the Portal.
Marketing activities
Portal sessions have been held in registries and off site to show practitioners how to use the new features.
Business Systems Development Officers (BSDOs) are now offering training to law firms either through visits to a firm or via remote access where the BSDO takes over a PC within the firm and speaks over the telephone to do the demonstration. For more information, call 1300 352 000.
Monthly registration of practitioners
After hours usage for October 2011
Total pages loaded: 1 033 470
The above figures show that over 18 per cent of all Portal work was carried out after hours in October 2011 compared to only 15.4 per cent in September 2011.
Congratulations to the Young Employees Advisory Group initiative (YEAG) – winners of the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration (AIJA) Award for Excellence for 2011.
The courts submitted the YEAG initiative into this year’s AIJA award because it is unique, a first for Australian courts, and it allows the courts to deliver new and innovative ways of operating in the community.
‘I am immensely proud of the achievements of YEAG. I have been inspired by their dedication and progress in advancing many important issues relating to court administration’, said Richard Foster, Chief Executive Officer.
The AIJA Award for Excellence in Judicial Administration has been running since 2002 and is designed to recognise outstanding achievement in the administration of justice within Australia. It is awarded biennially. Nominations for the award must have improved access to justice, demonstrated innovation and delivered real benefits for the justice system.
An awards presentation will be held in the coming months.
The AIJA is a research and educational institute associated with Monash University. It is funded by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and also from subscription income from its membership.
The principal objectives of the institute include research into judicial administration and the development and conduct of educational programs for judicial officers, court administrators and members of the legal profession in relation to court administration and judicial systems.
The AIJA has approximately 1000 members, which include judges, magistrates, tribunal members, court administrators, members of the practising legal profession and academic lawyers, court librarians, and others with an interest in judicial administration.
The Family Law Courts conducted a client satisfaction survey throughout June and July 2011. The surveys were carried out at 13 locations with the help of 102 university students and volunteers. Over the duration of the survey more than 1300 interviews were conducted.
The aim of the survey was to gauge the level of satisfaction that litigants, lawyers or even someone making an enquiry had, regarding their interaction with the courts. It did not look at decisions or rulings made by the courts, rather the experiences and services that individuals encountered while dealing with the courts.
The main observations found that almost 92 per cent of respondents were satisfied with the services that were provided to them and more than 85 per cent of respondents were generally satisfied with their overall visit to the registry, with one respondent saying ‘welcoming environment. I was nervous but the environment made me feel at ease’. The survey also found strong, positive responses regarding facilities, safety and the service that they received, with respondents describing staff as ‘friendly’, ‘helpful’ and ‘cheerful’. Areas for improvement included clarification on what the next step for litigants is and general timing issues. Respondents also made comments regarding more court staff being needed to speed up document filing at counters.
The survey is planned to become a regular activity and will help the courts refine their services and ensure that users’ needs are met to the best of the courts’ ability.
A report on the survey’s findings will be available early next year (2012).
Monday 26 December - All registries closed. Boxing day public holiday
Tuesday 27 December - All registries closed. Substitute Christmas day public holiday
Wednesday 28 December - Christmas shutdown (EA). Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Thursday 29 December - Christmas shutdown (EA). Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Friday 30 December - Christmas shutdown (EA). Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Monday 2 January - All registries closed. Substitute New Years day public holiday.
Tuesday 3 January - Court shutdown. Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Wednesday 4 January - Court shutdown. Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Thursday 5 January - Court shutdown. Skeleton staff in metro registries – rural and regional registries closed
Friday 6 January - Courts re-open for normal working day
Changes have been made to the Request for Refund form on the Family Law Courts website. Previously, the majority of the courts’ refunds were made by cheque, however the courts prefer refunds to be made by Electronic Funds Transfer. The amendments to the form allow applicants to provide additional contact details e.g. email address or phone number. This allows staff to obtain additional information from the client if required.
The updated form also includes space for the amount to be refunded and additional details stating who paid the initial court fees, as refunds are made to the original payee.
The updated form is available on www.familylawcourts.gov.au
The Family Court of Australia 2010–11 Annual Report was tabled in Parliament on 14 October 2011.
Some interesting information presented in the report includes:
The Court continues to deal with the most complex and difficult family law cases dealing with either parenting or financial issues or a combination of both. In recent years there has been a shift to a higher proportion of matters having financial issues, especially concerning superannuation, corporate business and complex property portfolios.
Copies of the Annual Report are available from:
In September 2011 the Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced that the Government will introduce new measures to strengthen Australia’s laws that deal with international parental child abduction.
Mr McClelland said the package of measures will include new criminal offences under the Family Law Act, extending the coverage of existing offences, allowing the family law courts to stop child support payments for parents who have abducted their child overseas and new information gathering powers for courts to locate children abducted from Australia.
The proposed changes are based on advice provided to the Government by the Family Law Council. The package includes:
The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin said under the proposed changes, courts will be able to suspend the payment of maintenance or child support by a parent that’s left behind.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Family Law Council, a range of exceptions will apply to the discretion of the courts to suspend child support:
The courts should also have regard to whether the taking parent was fleeing from violence, whether the child objects to returning to Australia, and the best interests of the child.
Draft legislation to implement this change in policy is expected to be ready by the end of this year to be introduced in Parliament in the first half of 2012.
The Government will also consider the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is inquiring into the issue of international child abduction.
Justice Michael Kent was sworn into the Family Court of Australia on 21 July 2011, at a ceremonial sitting held at the Brisbane registry.
Justice Kent holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Queensland University of Technology and was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland in 1983.
From 1977 to 1988 Justice Kent worked at Lyons Solicitors (formerly MG Lyons & Co.) initially as an articled clerk and then as a solicitor, associate and partner. During this time he worked in the area of litigation and then in the corporate and commercial areas.
In 1991, Justice Kent was admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland. His practice has included company law, insurance, medical negligence, common law and a substantial component of family law. His Honour has also lectured on company law at the Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators, is a member of the Executive of the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and is a member of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee of the Law Council of Australia.
‘I intend to harness the valuable inputs I have had from various sources and give it my best’ said Justice Kent at his ceremonial sitting.
The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin retired on 29 July 2011 after more than 20 years on the Bench of the Family Court of Australia.
After completing his studies at Monash University, Justice Mushin worked as a solicitor in Melbourne from his admission to practice in 1972 until his appointment to the bar in 1980. As a barrister, he practised in commercial, industrial and common law and developed a growing interest in family law.
In 1990, His Honour was appointed to the Bench of the Family Court of Australia and in doing so was the first Monash Law graduate to become a judge of any jurisdiction. He served on a number of court committees, including as Chair of the Family Court’s National Cultural Diversity Committee. His Honour chaired the National Steering Committee of the Court’s partnership with the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the Living in Harmony project.
His Honour was the Court’s Regional Coordinating Judge for Victoria and Tasmania for four years and is a current Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He has particular interest in continuing legal education and cultural diversity.
‘A better and more engaging ambassador for the Court would be hard to find, as a result he will be very much missed from the Court as a whole, and particularly from the Melbourne registry’ Chief Justice Diana Bryant.
Stephen Andrew was appointed as the Executive Director of Client Services in July 2011. Stephen has been acting in the role for almost three years.
Stephen has been with the Family Court since 2002 and has worked as the Executive Director, Information and Communication Technology Services for that time. Some of Stephen’s achievements include the conception and advancement of the Commonwealth Courts Portal, the implementation of Casetrack and the implementation of the operational merger of the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.
‘Stephen’s extensive experience as a senior manager in public administration will be invaluable in the current environment. I am sure you will join me in congratulating Stephen on his appointment’.
Richard Foster.
The Honourable Justice John Purdy passed away on 27 August 2011 at the age of 76.
Justice Purdy retired from the Family Court in September 2006 after 21 years at the Parramatta registry. His Honour had a mixed career until his appointment to the Family Court, working at a gas company in his early years and later as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Printing and Allied Trades Employer Association.
His Honour’s legal career commenced in 1973 when he was admitted to the Bar via the Barristers Admission Board (for people coming to law other than through university). He practiced at the Bar for a number of years and was the CEO of the NSW Law Society for five years.
Justice Purdy’s real passion however, was chess. Justice Purdy was a chess master and played chess professionally for as long as he financially could. His Honour was set to re-join the bar when his judicial appointment was announced.
When interviewed before his retirement His Honour said ‘I enjoyed every moment of being a judge, it’s a profession where experience of life can be as important as knowledge of law’.
The Family Court of Australia offers its condolences to his family.
For more information about this publication—including ordering additional copies or to make changes to your mailing details (including removal from the mailing list)—contact the Family Law Courts National Communication Office.
T (02) 6243 8690 8
F (02) 6243 8737
E communication@familylawcourts.gov.au