Sl v Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support

[2018] WASCA 39

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory applications
3. › Mandatory injunction
4. › Preservation of evidence
5. › Whether reasonable apprehension of destruction or loss of evidence
6. › Whether admissible evidence supported application
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal against refusal of leave to appeal
3. › Child protection order
4. › Interlocutory application in appeal
5. › Children's Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (WA), s 42
6. › Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA), s 45

Quick Take

An application for a mandatory injunction to preserve evidence requires admissible evidence establishing a reasonable apprehension that the respondent might destroy, fail to retain, or fail to protect relevant evidence. Serious allegations unsupported by admissible evidence are insufficient.

Case Details

Citation[2018] WASCA 39

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on1

2017Sl v Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Child Protection and Family SupportWASC 293

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in