High Court of Australia
H 350
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER NISI FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (PAWLEY, SIMPSON AND STRAUSS JJ.) AND TO CONNOR J.
EX PARTE M.J.G.S.
JUDGMENT WILSON J.
IN_THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER NISI FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (PAWLEY, SIMPSON AND STRAUSS JJ.) AND TO CONNOR J.
EX PARTE M.J.G.S.
This _is an application for an order nisi for a writ of certiorari in respect of decisions of the Family Court of Western Australia (Connor J., given on 23 September 1983) and on appeal of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Pawley, Simpson. and Strauss JJ., given on 22 March 1984). The applicant appeared in person. The
decisions relate primarily to the custody of his son M.
No specific grounds were set out in support of the application. It must be borne in mind that an applicant who in these circumstances seeks a writ of certiorari independently of a writ either of mandamus or prohibition faces the problem of the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the application: see In_re Waterside Workers
Federation; Ex parte Federated Clerks Union, unreported,
High Court of Australia, delivered 15 May 1984. However, having regard to the fact that the applicant has been without legal assistance I have thought it proper to give him the fullest
opportunity to explain his criticisms of the decisions in
2.
question. It was possible that that explanation might tend to show that the decision of Connor J. was so infected with error as to amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction and thereby raise for consideration the question of an order
nisi for a writ of mandamus.
Having listened to the applicant at some length on 30 April 1984 and again on 31 May 1984 and having read the judgments which are under review and some of the very considerable volume of material that has been tendered by the applicant I am now in a position to evaluate the merits of the applicant's intense desire to have those judgments reviewed in this Court whether by way of prerogative writ or
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate