L v P

[2022] WASCA 40

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Family Law
2. › Parenting orders
3. › Relocation
4. › Whether primary judge erred in granting relocation order
5. › Whether failure to consider s 66C factors
6. › Whether obligation to expressly discuss each s 66C factor in reasons
7. › Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 66C
1. Appeal
2. › Family law appeal
3. › Appellate review of discretionary parenting orders
4. › Whether discretionary error demonstrated
5. › Standard of appellate review of factual findings based on credibility
6. › House v The King principles
1. Family Law
2. › Parenting orders
3. › Family violence
4. › Statutory presumption of equal shared parental responsibility
5. › Whether reasonable grounds to believe family violence occurred
6. › Distinction between finding of reasonable grounds and finding of family violence
7. › Family Court Act 1997 (WA), ss 9A, 70A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether primary judge gave adequate reasons for parenting orders

Quick Take

The obligation to 'consider' each s 66C factor of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) does not require express discussion of each factor in reasons for decision; the omission to discuss a factor does not necessarily mean the trial judge failed to consider it, particularly where the factor has no sufficient relevance to displace the determinative significance of factors specifically discussed. A weighting error in the consideration of s 66C factors is not, of itself, ordinarily an independent ground justifying appellate intervention unless it amounts to a failure to exercise the discretion conferred on the court. A finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has engaged in family violence under s 70A(2)(b) is self-evidently different from a finding that a person has engaged in family violence.