The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim in the proceeding, this application was refused by the Judge, except in respect of agreed deletions, the Judge also ordered adverse costs orders against the plaintiffs.
“The law gives some guidance though. It says it’s never reasonable to apply force to a child’s head or neck (except where the force applied is ‘negligble’) or to apply any force that causes harm for more than a short period. Obviously it’s best not to smack your child but if you feel that it’s necessary to change their behavior, be mindful of the law and don’t overstep the mark.”
Fair enough I suppose, but is it signalling a kiss good bye to the McKenzie Friend? They are related in that the McKenzie friend is the big brother of little amicus curiae in that little amicus would normally only put in a written submission for the Court to consider where as McKenzie friend gets to speak before the Court.
This paper examines the legality and enforceability of the new Australian Government “No Jab, No Pay/Play” Legislation with the view of potential aspects to challenge the validity of this new law.
The Government has introduced this new Bill to address problems in the current system with enforcement of Financial Agreements made between couples outside the scope of the court.
The Full Court ordered the husband to pay the wife spousal maintenance of $534 per week for as long as he receives disability insurance payments on the basis of a total disability.
Many people are often armed with the opinions and advice of friends and relatives, a common misconception is a child between the ages of 12-16 should have the choice and be able to make this decision.