Re Jackson [2016] NSWSC 419
The summons was dismissed because the existing summons disclosed no proper basis for invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, there was no evidence of current risk to the child, proceedings concerning the child were before the Children's Court, and the plaintiff failed to file the proposed amended summons despite being given an opportunity to do so.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Child Welfare; Care and Protection of Children; Proceedings in Children's Court; Parens Patriae Jurisdiction / Equity Duty List; Summons
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ["proceedings in Children's Court" 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction' 'supreme Court Jurisdiction' 'dismissal of Summons']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Child Welfare; Care and Protection of Children; Proceedings in Children's Court; Parens Patriae Jurisdiction / Equity Duty List; Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether there was a proper basis for invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in relation to the care of a child where proceedings concerning the child were returnable before the Children's Court." 'Whether the summons should be dismissed after the plaintiff failed to file a proposed amended summons and was absent when the matter returned.']
Ratio Decidendi
The summons was dismissed because the existing summons disclosed no proper basis for invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, there was no evidence of current risk to the child, proceedings concerning the child were before the Children's Court, and the plaintiff failed to file the proposed amended summons despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed
Orders
- ['Summons dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment