Masson v ParsonsCitation:[2019] HCA 21Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:19 Jun 2019Case Number:S6/2019Read more

The High Court held that s 60H of the Family Law Act is not exhaustive and does not exclude the ordinary meaning of 'parent'. The appellant, having provided semen with the intention of fathering the child and having played an ongoing parental role, is a parent within the ordinary meaning of the word.

Parties: Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 19 June 2019
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Federal Jurisdiction, Parentage, Artificial Conception, Parenting Orders, Interpretation of Statutes

Constitutional Law Family Law Federal Jurisdiction Parentage Artificial Conception Parenting Orders Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether s 79(1) of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) applies State law as Commonwealth law in federal jurisdiction
2 Whether State law applies of its own force in federal jurisdiction
3 Whether s 60H of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is exhaustive of persons who may qualify as 'parent' of a child born of artificial conception procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

Declaration that the appellant is a parent of the child within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Orders of the Full Court of the Family Court set aside