← All Authorities
Australia appeals

CDJ v VAJ

(1998) 197 CLR 172
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year1998
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary property orders in family law unless error of principle is shown, applying House v The King principles.

Key Principle

family law; appellate interference with property orders; discretionary judgment; House v The King principles

Area of Law

family

Related Cases

Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554

A known sperm donor may be recognised as a legal parent under the Family Law Act 1975, overriding inconsistent State presumptions, with paramount consideration given to the best interests of the child.

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Stanford v Stanford (Just and Equitable Threshold) [2012] HCA 52

A property settlement order under s.79 FLA may only be made if it is just and equitable to alter existing property interests, which must be determined as a threshold question.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of CDJ v VAJ and how it applies to your situation.

Explain CDJ v VAJ