High Court gives leave to appeal in Paternity Suit! - Look out unfaithful Wives!

[Sagacious]

http://forum.zgeek.com/gallery/files/8/8/9/4/judge_2_thumb.jpg A MAN who sued his unfaithful ex-wife for falsely claiming two of her three children were his could be given the chance to regain a damages payout.

Liam Magill, 54, was initially awarded $70,000 by the Victorian County Court in November 2002 when he sued his wife for general damages and economic loss from his payment of child support.

However, his former wife, Meredith Magill, 37, successfully appealed against the decision when the Victorian Court of Appeal ruled there was no evidence to show she had intended to deceive her then husband.

Today a full bench of the High Court, Justice Michael Kirby, William Gummow, and Kenneth Hayne, granted Mr Magill leave to appeal against that court's decision.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17286267-29277,00.html)

This case has HUGE implications in Family Law and Child Support Cases.

[Up_All_Night]

hmmmz this is a tough one because its not the kids fault and you dont want the kids to suffer. Maybe once the kids are 18, you should be allowed to sue the mother for all the money you put towards the kids, being able to make them sell their houses and live on the street for decieving you.

[Sagacious]

hmmmz this is a tough one because its not the kids fault and you dont want the kids to suffer. Maybe once the kids are 18, you should be allowed to sue the mother for all the money you put towards the kids, being able to make them sell their houses and live on the street for decieving you.


What about the fact that you were forced to pay child support by the commonwealth government for children that you had no legal duty to support?

I see your point and so does the Family Court but a person's legal entitlement for redress for torst like deceit chould not be usurped merely because the money obtained by deception was applied to the benefit of persons under a legal impediment and unable to support themselves by the person so obtaining the benefit.

That is probably why he went tot he civil courts in victoria first rather than going through the Family COurt system. The civil courts don't apply the social worker logic of Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act (those courts are required to apply that sort of logic by section 65E of the Family law Act among other reasons) but rather apply strict jurisprudential concepts of right and wrong given the circumstances.

That is all.

[locust]

It's not the bloke's fault either and I don't want him to suffer.

[onetonnesam]

What about the fact that you were forced to pay child support by the commonwealth government for children that you had no legal duty to support?

I see your point and so does the Family Court but a person's legal entitlement for redress for torst like deceit chould not be usurped merely because the money obtained by deception was applied to the benefit of persons under a legal impediment and unable to support themselves by the person so obtaining the benefit.

That is probably why he went tot he civil courts in victoria first rather than going through the Family COurt system. The civil courts don't apply the social worker logic of Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act (those courts are required to apply that sort of logic by section 65E of the Family law Act among other reasons) but rather apply strict jurisprudential concepts of right and wrong given the circumstances.

That is all.


Say what? Didn't understand a word you wrote but it's good to see that it true that our legal system has nothing to do with justice.

[Sagacious]

Say what? Didn't understand a word you wrote but it's good to see that it true that our legal system has nothing to do with justice.
Basically I am agreeing with Locust's post

[~vjay~]

You can't tell me she didn't have a clue they possibly were not the paying fathers children, she did open her legs after all to him and the children might bear some resemblence to the lover as well.

I presume she went through with the deceit in question because she didn't want her ex partner to find out the truth, that and he would pay up whatever child support demanded.

She should at least pay back all the money he paid her.

[Jelreyn]

Yeah I think she should have to pay. If she wants child support, then get it from the real father of her children, not the poor bastard she tricked.

Edit: PS. What a fucken slut. Giving birth to 2 children who weren't her husband's when they were married for 14 years. Fuck. This turns me off women.. I hope she got screwed in the divorce settlement!

[minorproblem]

Fuck her give him his money back im sure this would screw so hard with your head i hope he has some support to help him cause i would feel uber fucked up.