Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:10:40.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mauger v. Mauger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

A. Cork
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1967 , pp. 275 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

[1967] Qd. R. 62. Supreme Court of Queensland; Lucas, Wanstall and Skerman JJ. The High Court on 19 October 1966 refused an application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court judgment, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused leave to appeal on 4 July 1967.

References

2 (1966) 7 F.L.R. 484. This report deals only with the judgment of the trial judge on the issues of custody and access.

3 Lucas and Skerman JJ. adopted the principles of review stated by Kitto, J. in Australian Coal and Shale Employees'Federation v. The Commonwealth (1953) 94Google Scholar C.L.R. 621, 627. Wanstall J. adopted a similar statement of principle from the joint judgment of Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ. in House v. The King (1936) 55 C.L.R. 499, 504-505.

4 [1965] 1 All E.R. 1057; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1048.

5 Ibid.

6 Chetwynd-Talbot v. Chetwynd-Talbot [1963] P. 436; Howarth v. Howarth [1964] P. 6; Paton v. Paton (1964) 7 F.L.R. 62.

7 Supra. n. 4.

8 In Williams v. Williams and Harris [1966] 2 All E.R. 614, the Court of Appeal was also faced with a similar problem, but made no reference to the wideprinciples enunciated by Sir Jocelyn, Simon P. in Bull v. Bull [1965] 1Google Scholar All E.R. 1057; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1048.

9 (1966) 7 F.L.R. 484, 486 (italics added).

10 Supra n. 1. The High Court refused an application for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court judgment.

11 [1965] V.R. 540.

12 (1960) 34 A.L.J.R. 65.

13 Supra. n. 1.

14 (1966) 7 F.L.R. 484, 487.

15 On this point, see Anderson v. Anderson (1960) 34 A.L.J.R. 65.

16 (1966) 8 F.L.R. 267.