Michael Sanderson (Author) Grame Thompson I understand that judges are still members of the bar and are officers of the court and are still bound by this paramount duty, am I wrong?

I never said the ‘administration of justice’ was the only duty, however I understand it is the only paramount duty, am I wrong?

I included this in another answer:

The Civil procedure acts also state:

367 Directions
(1) The court may make any order or direction about the conduct of a proceeding it considers appropriate, even though the order or direction may be inconsistent with another provision of these rules.
(2) In deciding whether to make an order or direction, the interests of justice are paramount.

The word paramount is only used twice and only in the context of ‘justice’.

If a case is progressed in breach of the paramount duty that is the ‘administration of justice’ how is this not a breach of the paramount duty?

The question I have posed has not been answered, see original post.

Mishka Hudson Hi Michael, the following may be of interest to you;

The High Court of Australia has affirmed the vitality of traditional equitable doctrines, as supported by Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78, 160 CLR 583. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/.../au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/78.html

To see this upheld in practice you can review;

The High Court position, held in Australia Taylor v. Taylor (1979), as follows;

“…So far as material to this case s. 79A (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that "When, on application by a person affected by an order made by a court under section 79, the court is satisfied that the order was obtained by fraud, by duress, by the giving of false evidence or by the suppression of evidence, the court may, in its discretion, set aside the order . . .". Section 83 provides, inter alia, that "in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party to a marriage . . . if there is in force an order with respect to the maintenance of that party . . . the Court may . . . (c) discharge the order. . . ."