PARKER v PARKER [1992] NSWCA 179

PARKER v PARKER [1992] NSWCA 179

The trial judge had jurisdiction under s76(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to order the male party to pay upfront costs to the female party, and such jurisdiction is not to be read down for de facto relationships.

Parties
Appellant: Parker; Respondent: Parker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Preliminary Costs, Jurisdiction for Costs
Family Law Costs De Facto Relationships Preliminary Costs Jurisdiction for Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parker

Appellant

Parker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to order preliminary costs for the female party to investigate the financial affairs of the male party in a de facto relationship dispute
  2. 2 Whether powers under s76(1) Supreme Court Act 1970 or s27 and s38 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 support such an order

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge had jurisdiction under s76(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to order the male party to pay upfront costs to the female party, and such jurisdiction is not to be read down for de facto relationships.

Court Disposition

summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused with costs
  • Summons dismissed with costs