U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The case of U v U, decided by the High Court of Australia in 2002, is the leading Australian case concerning international relocation in family law. It involved a mother who, on the breakdown of her marriage in Australia, sought to permanently relocate to her home in India with her daughter. The father, born in India but an Australian citizen, opposed the application and it was refused. The mother appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, arguing that the court had not correctly weighted up the two proposals put to the court by the parties, and had erred in placing too great a focus on the issue of the father's contact with the child. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The mother appealed further to the High Court of Australia and again her appeal was dismissed by a majority of 5:2 with Gaudron and Kirby JJ dissenting.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAustralian Feminist Judgments
Subtitle of host publicationRighting and Rewriting Law
EditorsHeather Douglas, Francesca Bartlett, Trish Luker, Rosemary Hunter
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherHart Publishing
Pages361-364
Number of pages4
Edition1
ISBN (Print)9781782255406
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

appeal
father
India
family court
family law
move
marriage
contact
citizen

Cite this

Crowe, J., & Field, R. M. (2014). U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary. In H. Douglas, F. Bartlett, T. Luker, & R. Hunter (Eds.), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (1 ed., pp. 361-364). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Crowe, Jonathan ; Field, Rachael M. / U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary. Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law. editor / Heather Douglas ; Francesca Bartlett ; Trish Luker ; Rosemary Hunter. 1. ed. Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2014. pp. 361-364
@inbook{2541495ee1c6415497b2292d36e899c9,
title = "U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary",
abstract = "The case of U v U, decided by the High Court of Australia in 2002, is the leading Australian case concerning international relocation in family law. It involved a mother who, on the breakdown of her marriage in Australia, sought to permanently relocate to her home in India with her daughter. The father, born in India but an Australian citizen, opposed the application and it was refused. The mother appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, arguing that the court had not correctly weighted up the two proposals put to the court by the parties, and had erred in placing too great a focus on the issue of the father's contact with the child. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The mother appealed further to the High Court of Australia and again her appeal was dismissed by a majority of 5:2 with Gaudron and Kirby JJ dissenting.",
author = "Jonathan Crowe and Field, {Rachael M}",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781782255406",
pages = "361--364",
editor = "Douglas, {Heather } and Francesca Bartlett and Trish Luker and Rosemary Hunter",
booktitle = "Australian Feminist Judgments",
publisher = "Hart Publishing",
address = "United Kingdom",
edition = "1",

}

Crowe, J & Field, RM 2014, U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary. in H Douglas, F Bartlett, T Luker & R Hunter (eds), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law. 1 edn, Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 361-364.

U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary. / Crowe, Jonathan; Field, Rachael M.

Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law. ed. / Heather Douglas; Francesca Bartlett; Trish Luker; Rosemary Hunter. 1. ed. Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2014. p. 361-364.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary

AU - Crowe, Jonathan

AU - Field, Rachael M

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The case of U v U, decided by the High Court of Australia in 2002, is the leading Australian case concerning international relocation in family law. It involved a mother who, on the breakdown of her marriage in Australia, sought to permanently relocate to her home in India with her daughter. The father, born in India but an Australian citizen, opposed the application and it was refused. The mother appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, arguing that the court had not correctly weighted up the two proposals put to the court by the parties, and had erred in placing too great a focus on the issue of the father's contact with the child. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The mother appealed further to the High Court of Australia and again her appeal was dismissed by a majority of 5:2 with Gaudron and Kirby JJ dissenting.

AB - The case of U v U, decided by the High Court of Australia in 2002, is the leading Australian case concerning international relocation in family law. It involved a mother who, on the breakdown of her marriage in Australia, sought to permanently relocate to her home in India with her daughter. The father, born in India but an Australian citizen, opposed the application and it was refused. The mother appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, arguing that the court had not correctly weighted up the two proposals put to the court by the parties, and had erred in placing too great a focus on the issue of the father's contact with the child. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The mother appealed further to the High Court of Australia and again her appeal was dismissed by a majority of 5:2 with Gaudron and Kirby JJ dissenting.

UR - http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/australian-feminist-judgments-9781849465212/

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781782255406

SP - 361

EP - 364

BT - Australian Feminist Judgments

A2 - Douglas, Heather

A2 - Bartlett, Francesca

A2 - Luker, Trish

A2 - Hunter, Rosemary

PB - Hart Publishing

CY - Oxford

ER -

Crowe J, Field RM. U v U [2002] HCA 36: Judgment and commentary. In Douglas H, Bartlett F, Luker T, Hunter R, editors, Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law. 1 ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2014. p. 361-364