Dickens v Dickens

Case [2017] HCASL 325

DICKENS

v.

DICKENS & ANOR

[2017] HCASL 325
S230/2017

  1. The applicant applies for an order under s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) removing the whole of the cause in SYC739/2010 now pending in the Family Court of Australia.

  2. The application does not raise any real issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation. In any event, this Court should not fragment the orderly progression of the proceedings pending in the Family Court (see Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 at 234‑235 [45]; [2003] HCA 7). The application for removal should be dismissed.

  3. Pursuant to r 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

P.A. Keane
14 December 2017 		J.J. Edelman
Details
AGLC
Dickens v Dickens [2017] HCASL 325
Case
[2017] HCASL 325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Dickens v Dickens involved an application by the applicant to remove the entirety of the cause from the Family Court of Australia, pending in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought the removal under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), however, the application did not involve any real issue arising under the Constitution or its interpretation. The application was made in relation to the case SYC739/2010, which was pending in the Family Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application raised any real issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, and whether the orderly progression of the proceedings in the Family Court should be fragmented. The court considered previous cases, including Bienstein v Bienstein (2003) 195 ALR 225 at 234-235 [45]; [2003] HCA 7, which established that the orderly progression of proceedings should not be fragmented.

The court found that the application did not raise any real issue arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation, and that the orderly progression of the proceedings in the Family Court should not be fragmented. The court dismissed the application for removal, and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The court's decision was made pursuant to rule 26.07.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application was dismissed on 14 December 2017 by Keane and Edelman.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.