GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 198

GR v Secretary, Department of Families, Disabilities and Community Services (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 198

There was no error of principle in the interlocutory decisions refusing the applicant relief; the orders sought were either futile, inconsistent with final orders of the Children's Court, or an abuse of process. Leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders was refused.

Parties
Applicant: GR; First Respondent: Secretary, Families, Disabilities and Community Services; Second Respondent: The Minister, Families, Disabilities and Community Services; Third Respondent: BB; Fourth Respondent: AB
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Parens Patriae Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Procedural Restraints, Care and Protection of Children
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Procedural Restraints +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GR

Applicant

Secretary, Families, Disabilities and Community Services

First Respondent

The Minister, Families, Disabilities and Community Services

Second Respondent

BB

Third Respondent

AB

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders dealing with care and custody of a child
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in the face of final orders of the Children's Court
  3. 3 Whether repeated applications constituted an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of principle in the interlocutory decisions refusing the applicant relief; the orders sought were either futile, inconsistent with final orders of the Children's Court, or an abuse of process. Leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Refuse the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory orders made (i) by Robb J on 2 April 2020; (ii) by Kunc J on 24 April 2020; (iii) by Slattery J on 22 May 2020.
  • Order that the applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs in this Court, based on common representation.