13 Jan 2020
Publication of the appellants' names would not be likely to cause extreme hardship to them or to the airline; the second affidavit was excluded as not fresh and unnecessary; therefore the District Court's refusal to continue interim name suppression was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
5 Feb 2016
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Family Court judge erred by giving excessive weight to parts of the psychologist's report and by failing properly to apply and explain the s5 welfare principles, particularly continuity and preservation of family relationships, and by relying on unsupported assertions about the respondent's employment plans; accordingly primary day‑to‑day care was awarded to the mother as best serving the child's welfare, with more generous contact for the father than the Family Court ordered.