• The application was made within one year of the children being removed.
• The removal was wrongful (without the consent of one of the parents and in breach of another parents rights of custody).

1. There is a grave risk that the return of the children to Italy would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation; or
2. The children object to being returned and their objection shows a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or ordinary wishes and the children are of an age and maturity where it is appropriate to take into account their views.

• January 2007- mother and father separated in Italy
• 27 November 2008 – mother and father entered into consent orders in Italy for children to live with the mother and spend weekend overnight time with the father
• July 2010 – mother failed to return the children to Italy after a four week holiday in Australia
• 18 February 2011 – an application was made under the Hague Convention for the return of the children to Italy
• 16 May 2011 – the application for return of the children to Italy was heard by Justice Forrest
• 23 June 2011 – a decision was made by Justice Forrest for the children to be returned
• 5 August 2011 – an appeal was filed by the mother
• 5 September 2011 – the appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
• 9 March 2012 – the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia delivered their decision.

Reproduced with permission.

For more information go to www.flpa.org.au.

Further to my earlier post – the High Court declined the Special Leave application on the causation finding ending the class action. I refer you to the transcript and in particular the continuing discussion of the U.K and Canadian decisions of:

• ·         McGhee v The National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7; [1973] 1 WLR 1,
• ·         Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32
• ·         Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20; [2006] 2 AC 572 and
• ·         Resurface Corp v Hanke [2007] 1 SCR 333

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

Date:   Wednesday 25 July 2012

Time:   2.00pm – 5.15pm

Venue:  Sofitel Brisbane Central, 249 Turbot Street, Brisbane           

Spend an afternoon working through case studies with medical and legal practitioners experienced in the finer points of asbestos litigation and gain a better appreciation of the medicine relating to each and the differences and the impact on liability, evidentiary issues and quantifying damages for Divisible and Indivisible diseases.

Chair and provide commentary: Judge M J Finnane RFD QC, District Court of NSW

Session 1

Preparing and Running a Case Where the Plaintiff has a Divisible Disease

ü  Injury- when sustained

ü  Pleural Plaques and pain

ü  Exposure period- what disease sustained?

ü  Use of apportionment guide or otherwise

ü  Observations on the medicine

Presented by:

Ross Stenson, Barrister and Mediator; &

Dr David McEvoy, Thoracic Physician, Mater Medical Clinic, Member of the Medical Advisory Panel (Thoracic) for Q-COMP

Session 2

Preparing and Running a Case Where the Plaintiff has a Latent Disease

ü  Leading causation decisions

ü  The Meaning of an ‘injury’ within the Queensland workers’ compensation scheme by reference to:

ü  Compensation and damages

ü  When it is sustained

ü  Observations on the medicine of divisible/indivisible diseases and sustaining an “injury”.

Presented by:

David Cormack, Barrister, Queensland Bar;  &

Dr David McEvoy, Thoracic Physician, Mater Medical Clinic, Member of the Medical Advisory Panel (Thoracic) for Q-COMP

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 18 (3 May 2012)

 (PDF32K)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Meredith Hellicar & Ors[2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012)
(PDF 35K)

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack