Editing Ex parte (section)

==Australia==
In Australian law ex parte is used in two senses. The predominant use is to refer to an ex parte hearing, being one which is heard in the absence of one or more parties. Where proceedings are heard ex parte, a high degree of candour is required, including full and fair disclosure of facts adverse to the moving party. A failure to make such disclosure is ordinarily sufficient to warrant discharge of such order as might be made.<ref>{{cite AustLII |litigants=Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Allam |court=HCA |num=3 |year=2016}} at [15] per [[Stephen Gageler|Gageler]] J.</ref>

The other use means 'on the application of' when used in the case name where prerogative relief is sought, such as a [[writ of prohibition]], [[certiorari]] or [[mandamus]]. Thus for example the case name in the [[R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia|''Boilermakers' case'']] is ''R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia'' as the case concerned a writ of prohibition that was sought against [[Richard Kirby (arbitrator)|Kirby]], [[Edward Arthur Dunphy|Dunphy]] and [[Richard Ashburner|Ashburner]], who were judges of the [[Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration]], on the application of the [[Australian Manufacturing Workers Union#History|Boilermakers Society of Australia]]. While the case name is 'ex parte' it was not heard in the absence of a party, with the judges being represented by D I Menzies [[Queen's Counsel|QC]] who also represented the [[Attorney-General for Australia|Commonwealth Attorney-General]].<ref>{{cite AustLII|litigants=[[R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia]] (Boilermakers' case)|court=HCA|num=10|year=1956|parallelcite=(1956) 94 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 254}}.</ref> Similarly the case of ''[[Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally]]'' concerned application of McNally for a writ of prohibition in relation to proceedings in the [[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]] that were commenced by Wakim. Both McNally and Wakim appeared in the [[High Court of Australia|High Court]].  There was however no appearance for the first respondents in the bankruptcy cases, the judges of the Federal Court.<ref>{{cite AustLII |litigants=[[Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally]] |court=HCA |num=27 |year=1999 |parallelcite=(1999) 198 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 511}}</ref>