Please enter your search query in the form below to search judgments of the Family Court of Australia

using
Number of results per page:
Austlii logo

Judgments search is powered by Austlii


Note: Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish or distribute a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a Judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case. A breach of the section is a criminal offence. The section also sets out certain limited defences to criminal liability. An example is where the Court has expressly authorised the publication.

  • Chafer & Quigley [2021] FamCAFC 43

    01 Apr 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against orders made by consent and orders made by determination – Limitations on appeal from consent orders – Adequacy of reasons – Form of order for sole parental responsibility broader than intended – Application for property orders withdrawn – Appellant bound by conduct of trial – Discretionary judgment – Application to adduce further evidence dismissed – Appeal allowed in part – Applications for costs dismissed

  • Pattison & Loomis [2021] FamCAFC 41

    01 Apr 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – ARBITRATION – Unequivocal consent required to validate the arbitration process pursuant to s 13E of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant husband’s consent was conditional – Where the primary judge erred in dismissing the husband’s objection to the registration of the arbitration award – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates ordered.

  • Meadows & Meadows (No. 5) [2021] FamCAFC 42

    31 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROCEDURAL – Appeal against dismissal of a review of Registrar’s decision – Failure to give reasons – Error of law – Necessity to give reasons – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Review application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROCEDURAL – Error in section referred to in vexatious proceedings order – Section 102QD and s 102QE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Oral application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Leave granted on limited basis – Appeal allowed in part – Re-exercise of discretion – Vexatious proceedings order varied.

  • Hakimi & Nasser [2021] FamCAFC 40

    31 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Appeal from final parenting orders – Where the applicant mother acted promptly in filing an application for expedition – Where there are serious issues of international relocation and whether the father should spend any time with the children – Where the nature of proceedings justify the appeal being expedited – Application granted.

  • Weston & Nathan [2021] FamCAFC 37

    23 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – International relocation – Orders made for the mother to relocate the children to the United States of America and for the father to spend time with the children in the USA and no time with them in Australia – Both parties proposed that the children spend time with the father in both countries – Procedural fairness – Father denied opportunity to address orders for no time in Australia – Adequacy of reasons – No merit in other grounds of appeal – Appeal allowed in part.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Assessment of parties’ contributions – Add-backs – Superannuation split – Assessment of s 90SF(3) factors – No merit in any ground of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Parenting appeal allowed in part – Father to pay part of the mother’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum.

  • C Lawyers & Boulos [2021] FamCAFC 39

    26 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the primary judge summarily dismissed the applicant’s interim application for injunctions – Where the first respondent was paid funds out of consent property settlement orders – Applicants assert they hold a lien over funds received by the first respondent for legal fees owed – Real risk that the funds would not be available should the appeal succeed – Injunction granted against both respondents in order to preserve funds pending hearing of the appeal – Application granted.

  • Syms & Syms [2021] FamCAFC 38

    26 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – No unacceptable risk of sexual abuse by father – Risk of emotional harm in the care of mother – Discretionary judgment – Findings open on the evidence – Adequate reasons – Permanent supervision – Appeal dismissed – Mother to pay the costs of the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in a fixed sum.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Adduce further evidence – Controversial evidence – Not satisfied that further evidence would have produced a different result – Application dismissed.

  • Langley & Tarelli (No. 3) [2021] FamCAFC 36

    12 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal – Appeal against stay of final parenting orders – Reasonable explanation for delay – Appeal expedited – Application granted.

  • Harrell & Nesland (No. 2) [2021] FamCAFC 35

    12 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – SLIP RULE – Where the primary judge made a costs order in the respondent’s favour pursuant to r 21.02 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) requiring costs to be assessed on a party and party basis without making an order referring the costs for taxation under Chapter 19 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Dispute over the scale which governed the assessment – Where the primary judge amended the order as to costs pursuant to the slip rule (r 16.05(2)(e) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules), to provide the costs order be referred to taxation under Chapter 19 of the Family Law Rules – Where the primary judge said it was his original intention to make that order – Where the amended order causes a disparity in excess of $250,000 – Where there is nothing on the face of the record, the reasons, the surrounding circumstances, the evidence or how the case was conducted to demonstrate that the primary judge had the intention to refer the costs for taxation under Chapter 19 of the Family Law Rules – Where the primary judge erred – Appeal allowed – Comments made about r 16.05(2)(h) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules which deals with the ability to make an order under the slip rule arising from a unilateral accidental slip or omission by the court or a legal practitioner – Costs certificate granted to the respondent.

  • Pearson & Pearson [2021] FamCAFC 34

    12 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against an order dismissing the appellant husband’s application to have consent orders set aside pursuant to s 79A(1)(a) and s 79A(1A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant had alleged that the respondent had given false evidence in the application for consent orders, that the appellant had received incompetent legal advice which was not independent and that the consent orders were so unjust so as to amount to a miscarriage of justice – Where the primary judge found errors in the application for consent orders did not constitute a basis for setting the orders aside, the appellant had received competent legal advice, and the outcome produced by the consent orders were not so far beyond the range as to constitute a miscarriage of justice – Where the appellant asserted that the parties had subsequently recommenced cohabitation and there was implied consent to set the orders aside – Where the primary judge found the parties had not recommenced cohabitation – Conclusions open on the evidence – Where the primary judge did not err by not drawing an adverse inference arising from the respondent’s failure to call two witnesses – No merit to any challenge on appeal – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent wife.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal against a costs order – Where it was conceded that if the substantive appeal was dismissed the appeal against the cost order should be dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

  • Adlin & Northern Territory Central Authority (No. 2) [2021] FamCAFC 32

    11 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Application for costs certificates for the appeal and re-hearing pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – Application filed after delivery of appeal reasons for judgment – No submissions filed – Failure to comply with procedural directions – Application dismissed.

  • Obannon & Scarffe [2021] FamCAFC 33

    10 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – Procedural fairness – Where the primary judge restrained the appellant from continuing proceedings in Singapore in their totality – Where the respondent only sought that the appellant be restrained from continuing the property proceedings – Where restraint of the totality of the proceedings in Singapore was not raised with the parties and no submissions were made to that effect – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates granted.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether the dismissal of the respondent’s stay application in Singapore had a preclusionary effect upon advancing a claim under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of Clayton v Bant (2020) 385 ALR 41– Res judicata – Where the statutory right to seek orders under s 79 cannot “merge” in any judicial orders other than final orders – Where the court in Singapore did not determine any substantive rights to property of the parties – Estoppel – Where any forum issue before the court in Singapore was not the same forum issue advanced in the Australian proceedings – Where the respondent was not estopped by the determination in Singapore from advancing his application for an anti-suit injunction – Where there can be no issue estoppel in relation to a foreign court’s decision that it has jurisdiction.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EVIDENCE – Whether the primary judge had an independent duty to exclude any irrelevant or inadmissible evidence – Where the objection to the expert evidence was vague and imprecise – Where no right of reply to the evidence was sought, nor was there any application before the primary judge to cross-examine the witness – Where the primary judge was not under a separate duty to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence absent any objection being raised.

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the appellant seeks to adduce two provisions of the Women’s Charter (Singapore, cap 353, 2009 rev ed) – Where expert evidence relied upon by the respondent before the primary judge was incomplete by omission of the full terms of the relevant sections – Where the subject sections are relevantly considered in association with some of the challenges on appeal – Application granted.

  • Varnham & Moses [2021] FamCAFC 31

    05 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – Where no legitimate comparison of the parties’ respective post-separation contributions results in an adjustment of 10 per cent in the wife’s favour – Consideration of s 75(2) factors – Where the primary judge failed to analyse the effect of any further adjustment in real money terms – Adequacy of reasons – Where the primary judge’s reasons do not satisfactorily explain the assessment of post-separation contributions and the approach in addressing relevant s 75(2) factors – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates granted.

  • Neil & Zang [2021] FamCAFC 30

    03 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Apprehended bias – Waiver – No application to primary judge seeking disqualification – Asserted failure to consider discrete application – Challenge misstates the facts – Section 102NA Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prohibition on cross examination – Discretionary factors – Where the appellant was self-represented at trial and the respondent was represented – Unchallenged findings of family violence perpetrated by the appellant – Trial transcript demonstrates appellant’s active participation in trial – No error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Albion & Galaway [2021] FamCAFC 29

    01 Mar 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – CONSENT ORDER – Where the parties have agreed on the disposition of the appeal – Where this Court is asked to make an order by consent allowing the appeal and making final parenting orders – Where there is a basis for allowing the appeal – Where it is not conceded by the respondent that the primary judge erred in making the orders the subject of the appeal on the basis of the evidence that was before his Honour – Where it is conceded that on the basis of the further evidence this Court has received with the consent of the parties that further evidence undermines the findings made by the primary judge and on which his Honour based the orders appealed – Where the further evidence demonstrates that those orders are erroneous – Where one of the primary issues raised in the proceedings below was the behaviour of the respondent in relation to his use of illicit drugs and his violence – Where the further evidence is the result of a hair follicle drug analysis which records the test as being positive for methamphetamine – Where that is said to undermine the orders because the primary judge’s optimism for the future in relation in particular to the respondent’s drug taking is not borne out – Where this Court cannot make the final parenting orders sought because the appeal only deals with the interim orders and the substantive proceedings continue in the court below – Where the desired outcome sought could have been more easily achieved if the parties had gone back before the primary judge to make the consent orders and simply discontinued the appeal – Appeal allowed – Orders appealed set aside – Proceedings remitted to the primary judge with a view to his Honour making final parenting orders by consent.

  • Akhtar & Gaber (No.2) [2021] FamCAFC 28

    26 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Binding financial agreement – Where the parties’ marriage agreement is not a financial agreement recognised by Pt VIIIA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the marriage agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to make orders under s 79 of the Act – Property settlement consent orders – Where the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application pursuant to s 79A(1) of the Act – Disqualification – No apprehension of bias – No error by the primary judge – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Sarber & Tacoma [2021] FamCAFC 24

    24 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONSENT ORDERS – Error of law – Where the respondent’s solicitor sought a consent order unilaterally and in non-compliance with r 13.04 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – Whether, as at the time the substantive orders were made, both parties were consenting to their making – Where neither the appellant, nor any solicitor on his behalf, was on notice that the application for the order was to be made – Where it remained necessary for the Court to be satisfied of the existence of jurisdiction before orders were made in purported exercise of it – Where the respondent conceded the appeal – Appeal allowed – Costs certificate granted to the appellant.

  • Malloy & Stopford Malloy [2021] FamCAFC 23

    24 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Where interveners seek costs against husband – Financial circumstances – Wholly unsuccessful application for leave to appeal – Where written offers to settle were reasonable and should have been accepted – Husband to pay interveners’ costs of the application for leave to appeal as agreed or assessed – Husband to pay the interveners’ costs of the application for costs as agreed or assessed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Where wife seeks costs against husband – Financial circumstances – Wholly unsuccessful application for leave to appeal – Details of written offers to settle not provided – Husband to pay wife’s fixed costs of the application for leave to appeal – Wife’s application for costs of the costs application dismissed.

  • Aldous & Samways [2021] FamCAFC 21

    22 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against order granting equal time parenting – Failure to consider whether equal time parenting reasonably practicable due to work commitments – Overseas travel – Orders beyond scope of those sought – Appeal allowed – Further submissions required as to orders pending remitted re-hearing – Costs certificates issued to parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for appeal and rehearing

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where respondent sought to adduce further evidence of work commitments – Evidence said to be controversial – Purpose of evidence to finalise proceedings without retrial – Purpose cannot be achieved – Application dismissed

  • Beamish & Coburn (Deceased) [2021] FamCAFC 20

    22 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal from costs order against counsel and solicitor – Jointly and severally liable for successful respondent’s costs of proceedings before the primary judge – Breakdown of de facto relationship – Where the proceedings were doomed to fail but were nonetheless pursued – No error by the primary judge – Appeal dismissed with fixed costs – Legal representatives jointly and severally liable for respondent’s costs of appeal and cross-appeal.

    FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – COSTS – Cross-appeal from costs order against counsel and solicitor – Rule 19.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where quantum and apportionment were not raised before the primary judge – Cross-appeal dismissed with fixed costs – Legal representatives jointly and severally liable for respondent’s costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

  • Andris & Andris [2021] FamCAFC 18

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS CERTIFICATES – Application for costs certificates where parties agree errors of law – Appeal determined without oral hearing – Where the parties contributed to the difficulties which underpin the errors made by the trial judge – Application for certificates refused.

  • Kovac & Hurst [2021] FamCAFC 14

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Mother seeks expedition of her appeal against final orders relating to the father’s time with the parties’ children – Where the orders are stayed pending appeal – Expedition not opposed – Appeal raises child welfare and abuse issues – Factors justify this appeal being given priority over other appeals – Application granted.

  • Dixon & Elliot [2021] FamCAFC 27

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the appellant seeks expedition of the hearing of his appeal – Where the matter commenced sometime in 1984 but was not then dealt with for in excess of 30 years – Where the appellant is 81 years of age and is anxious to have the matter finalised as soon as possible given its extended history – Where it is not appropriate that another matter be removed from the April list to include this matter – The matter be listed as the first reserve in the April 2021 list and if not heard in that list it be expedited and be listed with priority in the June 2021 sittings.

  • Delaney & Delaney [2021] FamCAFC 26

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time – Application for an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Where the circumstances for the failure of the applicant to file the Notice of Appeal within time are not of themselves a basis for dismissing the application – Where none of the so-called grounds of appeal have any chance of success and the appeal is without merit – Where the prejudice to the respondent outweighs the prejudice to the applicant – Where there is no utility in granting the application – Application dismissed.

  • Gamage & Kumara [2021] FamCAFC 25

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the principal issue is the order for the sale of a property – Where the subject property has been sold – Where the appeal is rendered futile insofar as it seeks to appeal against the order providing for the sale and the other orders in relation to effecting that sale – Where the facts propounded in support of the application for leave to appeal are simply inadequate and do not demonstrate any basis for leave to appeal to be granted – Where the grounds of appeal do not identify any appealable error by the primary judge – Appeal dismissed.

  • Akhtar & Gaber [2021] FamCAFC 22

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – DISQUALIFICATION – Apprehended bias – Where the appellant seeks disqualification of each member of the bench – Separate reasons provided by each judge – Test in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 not satisfied – Litigants not to pick and choose judges – Application dismissed.

  • Hicks & Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Hicks [2021] FamCAFC 19

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the primary judge set aside consent orders pursuant to s 79A(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and made orders in substitution – Where the husband did not participate in the proceedings – Adequate reasons – Whether the primary judge had proper regard to the husband’s application of substantial funds – Where the husband has not given any explanation as to the transfer of significant amounts overseas – Where the husband’s debts proven in bankruptcy are to be paid solely by him – Where the primary judge emphasised the limitation that existed by reason of the husband’s non-disclosure and non-participation in the proceedings – Non-disclosure – Whether, without information about the husband’s circumstances, it is possible to identify a just and equitable settlement of property – Where recent Full Court authority supports the principle that a party should not be able to take advantage of his or her own non-disclosure – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

    FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – PROPERTY – Credibility – Whether the primary judge ought to have found that the wife was an unreliable witness – Where the primary judge’s findings were open on the evidence – Bankruptcy – Whether the primary judge ought to have found that the husband’s debts were joint debts – Where the wife did not have any involvement in the transaction that created the debt – Where it was within the ambit of a legitimate exercise of discretion for the primary judge to deal with the husband’s debts in the manner in which his Honour did – Cross-appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Stern & Colli [2021] FamCAFC 15

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Allegation of bias – Best interests (section 60CC Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) – Findings of fact – Injunctions – Weight challenges – Adequate reasons – Expertise of family report writer – Currency of evidence – Notation re Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – No error of law or of fact is demonstrated and there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

  • Scollan & Allamby [2021] FamCAFC 17

    10 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – LEAVE TO APPEAL – APPEAL – DISMISS – Where the respondent seeks that the appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal be summarily dismissed – Where the grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal are incompetent and fail to identify any appealable error by the primary judge – Where the appeal has no prospect of success and thus the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant opposes the respondent’s application for costs – Where the opposition by the appellant to the application by the respondent seeking dismissal of his appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where that satisfies the requirement of a justifying circumstance to make an order for costs – Where the financial circumstances of the parties do not prevent an order for costs being made – Where there is ample Full Court authority which provides that even where there is impecuniosity that is not a bar to an order for costs being made where the circumstances otherwise justify it – Where the appellant’s position cannot be described as impecunious – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent in the amount sought.

  • Wadsley & Cabassa [2021] FamCAFC 16

    09 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – REINSTATE – Where the applicant seeks to reinstate an appeal deemed abandoned as a result of his failure to file an appeal book as ordered – Where there is no utility in allowing the appeal to proceed – Where there is no adequate or acceptable reason for the failure to file the appeal book on time – Where the applicant raises no competent ground of appeal which would allow the appeal to proceed – Where in the interests of justice the application must be refused – Application dismissed.

  • Colburn & Cleese [2021] FamCAFC 12

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal succeeded on a ground not raised by the appellant – Hypothetical or advisory opinion – Where the respondent seeks that the appellant pay her costs of the appeal – Financial circumstances – Conduct of both parties to the proceedings weighs in favour of no order as to costs – No costs certificates granted – Appellant’s application for his costs of meeting the respondent’s costs application dismissed.

  • Atwood & Atwood [2021] FamCAFC 11

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from final parenting orders – No recognised ground of appeal particularised – No appealable error identified – Notation made on the invitation of the parties that the child may approach the mother of his own volition.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal against superannuation splitting order – Undeclared superannuation interests – No evidence adduced at trial or in the appeal – No error demonstrated.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Appeal against costs order – Financial circumstances – No error identified – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

  • Best & Best [2021] FamCAFC 13

    11 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from final parenting orders – Rebuttal of presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Best interests of the child – Relocation – Restraint – Reasons given in short form pursuant to s 94AAA(7) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Findings open on the evidence – Decision of the primary judge not plainly wrong – Adequate reasons – Appeal dismissed – Appellant father to pay the respondent mother’s costs of the appeal.

  • Beroni & Corelli [2021] FamCAFC 9

    10 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Undue influence – Unconscionability – Free will – Wife’s proficiency in English – Adequacy of legal advice – Circumstances amounting to undue influence – Onus of proof – Special disadvantage – Terms of the binding financial agreement a factor in demonstrating vitiating factors – Failure to call solicitor – Rule in Jones v Dunkel – No merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the husband wholly unsuccessful in the appeal – Where substantial disparity between the financial circumstances of the parties, favouring the husband – Costs ordered in favour of the wife in the amount sought.

  • Kingsley & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2021] FamCAFC 10

    05 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – HAGUE CONVENTION – Where the orders appealed providing for the return of the subject child from Australia to Canada have not been complied with – Where the appellant has now filed an application pursuant to regulation 19A of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) – Where the appellant asserts that since the making of the return order circumstances have arisen which make it impracticable for the order to be carried out and/or there are exceptional circumstances which exist that justify the return order being discharged – Where the application has not been dealt with by the primary judge because her Honour considered it should await the hearing and determination of this appeal – Where all remedies that are available at first instance should be pursued before any appeal is heard and determined – Where in the event that this appeal proceeded and was heard and determined and the regulation 19A application was pursued there may very well be an appeal against that determination and that circumstance should be avoided – Where the respondent is principally concerned about any delay that may flow from the adjournment of this appeal given the non-compliance with the return order – Appeal adjourned to a date to be fixed.