High Court of Australia
High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ. Vitzdamm-Jones v Vitzdamm-Jones [1981] HCA 8
ORDER Vitzdamm-Jones v. Vitzdamm-Jones. Questions in the case stated amended and answered as follows: Question 1 Does the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, operate to confer jurisdiction upon the Family Court to entertain and determine the application of Wendy Jane Vitzdamm-Jones made on 6 December 1979 for custody of or access to Felix Christian Vitzdamm-Jones, the child of the marriage of Bronwen Ruth Vitzdamm-Jones and the late Alfred Athol Vitzdamm-Jones? Answer No. Question 2 Does the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, (and in particular does s. 92 of that Act) operate to authorize the Family Court to make an order entitling Wendy Jane Vitzdamm-Jones to intervene—
(a) in the proceeding constituted by the application filed on 8 August 1978 by the late Alfred Athol Vitzdamm-Jones?
(b) in the proceeding constituted by the application filed on 5 September 1979 by Bronwen Ruth Vitzdamm-Jones?
Answer 2 (a) No. Answer 2 (b) No. Question 3 Is s. 61 (4) of the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, a valid law of the Commonwealth and in particular is it—
(a) a law with respect to marriage within par. (xxi.) of s. 51 of the Constitution?
(b) a law with respect to divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants within par. (xxii.) of s. 51 of the Constitution?
Answer 3 (a) Yes. Answer 3 (b) Not necessary to answer. Declare that the Family Court of Australia lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applications of Wendy Jane Vitzdamm-Jones refered to in question 2 and remit those matters to that court with a direction that it dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction. Order that the respondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court be paid by the applicant. St. Clair v. Nicholson. Questions in the case stated amended and answered as follows: Question 1 Does the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, operate to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to grant the relief claimed in pars. 1 and 2 of the summons of the applicant filed in that Court, being annexure A to the case stated, and being an application of Ray Edward St. Clair made on 30 April 1980 for the custody of Shane Maxwell Sweep, a child of the marriage of Maxwell Francis Sweep and the late Judith Ann St. Clair, formerly Sweep, nee Nicholson? Answer Yes. Question 2 Are ss. 8 (1) and 40 (3) of the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, in their application to par. (f) of the definition of matrimonial cause in s. 4 (1) of the said Act valid, and if so, to what extent? Answer Not answered. Question 3 Is s. 61 (4) of the Family Law Act 1975, as amended, a valid law the Commonwealth and if so, to what extent, and in particular is it and its various sub-paragraphs—
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