FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Whether the primary judge’s decision is plainly wrong – Whether the orders made were plainly unreasonable and unjust or proper having regard to the findings of fact that were made – Whether orders were made in accordance with the legislative requirements promoting safety and the protection from violence – Whether the primary judge failed to give proper consideration to alternative proposed orders – Where no error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Divorce – Application in an Appeal – Stay – Where the wife’s appeal from a divorce order was dismissed – Where by operation of s 55 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the divorce order was to take effect one month after that dismissal – Where on the final day the wife served upon the Court an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and filed an application seeking the stay of the dismissal of her appeal and the divorce order pending the disposition of her application for special leave – Where an application for special leave is made pursuant to s 55 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and s 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and is not an “appeal” for the purposes of s 55 of the Act – Where the divorce order has since become operable by force of statute – Where it is now impossible to grant the stay she seeks – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders – Where the appellant asserts that it was not just and equitable for a property adjustment to be made – Contention that the trial judge failed to include potential Capital Gains Tax liabilities and interim payments ordered in the property pool – Assertion of error when determining contributions – Contention that there was no basis for a s 90SF(3) adjustment – Inadequate reasons – Examination of principles regarding Capital Gains Tax – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife appeals against a fixed costs order made after a contested final hearing – Where it is argued that the parties were not afforded procedural fairness – Where parties were not aware a fixed costs order was in contemplation – Where parties were therefore not able to make submissions regarding a fixed costs order – Appeal allowed and matter re-determined.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Vexatious Proceedings – Application for leave governed by s 102QE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the orders the applicant seeks to challenge are not materially different from the applicant's own minute of order – Where the applicant advances no reasonable grounds for the proposed appeal – Where the proposed appeal is vexatious and the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed – No orders as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Where the Magistrate dismissed the father’s application to vary final parenting orders – Where the father alleges the Magistrate made an error of law by taking extraneous material into account – Where the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) permits material on which existing final parenting orders were based to be considered when deciding whether final parenting orders should be re-opened – Where the Magistrate informed the parties of the intention to take the single expert report into account and gave them the opportunity to be heard – Where the father contends the Magistrate misapplied the Act – Where the father contended his changes circumstances, including his new living arrangements, the child’s wishes and some improvement in the state of his mental health, were sufficient to justify fresh litigation – Where the Magistrate concluded the changes in circumstance asserted by the father, individually and in aggregation, did not justify the reconsideration of the final parenting orders – Application dismissed – Application for costs in the sum of $1,000 granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where procedural orders made less than a week ago anticipating the appeal would be heard by the Full Court no earlier than August 2025 – Where the appeal can be heard in late May 2025 – Where the appellant opposes the earlier hearing dates when she is without legal representation – Where the desire of the mother for legal representation is not the dispositive consideration – Where the desire of the father for prompt determination of the appeal must also be accommodated – Orders made – Appeal hearing fixed for May 2025 – Procedural Orders varied.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge made an order that final parenting orders be reconsidered – Where the primary judge found s 65DAAA did not require a change in circumstances for the reconsideration of final parenting orders – Where the subsequent Full Court decision in Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 (“Radecki”) rendered the primary judge’s construction of s 65DAAA erroneous – Where the respondent contended Radecki should not be followed – Where the Full Court decision is binding – Discussion of Radecki and the codification of Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where the appeal is flawed as the order is not a judgment from which an appeal lies – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from the primary judge’s decision to summarily dismiss her parenting application – Where judgment in New Zealand family law proceedings (“New Zealand proceedings”) was reserved at the time of the primary judge’s decision and the appeal was filed, but has since been delivered – Where the mother attempted to initiate proceedings by relying upon her status as an Australia citizen who now resides in Western Australia – Where the father is the biological parent of one child but not the other – Where the children have lived predominantly with the father in New Zealand since 2018 – Where the mother’s generic complaint about the Family Court of Western Australia and the law is not a competent ground of appeal – Where the mother could not verify the allegation that the primary judge admitted bias – Where the mother provides no rational explanation for why she asserts the orders in New Zealand are unlawful – Where the primary judge found the mother’s application was an abuse of process and the Court was a clearly inappropriate forum to hear the parenting dispute – Where any factual error made by the primary judge about the findings made in the New Zealand proceedings does not vitiate the decision – Where the mother’s belief the appeal raises issues of jurisdiction and Constitutionality is not proof of fact – Where the mother’s Application in an Appeal and oral application to adduce further evidence in the appeal are dismissed as being futile – Where the mother’s oral application to rescind previous interlocutory appellate orders is dismissed – Where the mother’s oral application to appeal from the recently pronounced final orders in the New Zealand proceedings is dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show Cause – Where the appeal was listed for the appellant to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed – Where the appellant alleges corruption by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the appellant complains of perjury by the respondent – Where the appellant alleges threats made by the respondent’s father – Where the grounds of appeal do not allege any legal, factual or discretionary error by the primary judge – Where the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Where appellant argues that amount of overcapitalisation was greater than that conceded by the respondent at trial – Where appellant argues the primary judge erred in accepting the concession of the respondent that the overcapitalisation was around $500,000 – Where appellant claims that the Court should make an assessment based on the use of funds during the relationship as opposed to initial contributions – Where appellant argues primary judge failed to properly exercise discretion – Consideration of authorities on overcapitalisation – Where no detailed argument or authorities regarding overcapitalisation were put to the primary judge – Ground of appeal not established – No error of discretion as per House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 established – Appeal dismissed – Costs awarded.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from parenting orders – Where the appellant submits the primary judge has misrepresented facts in direct bias, wilfully misapplied evidence, wilfully ignored objections to evidence, intentionally misrepresented facts in favour of the other party, and intentionally misrepresented facts against the children – Dissatisfaction with outcomes does not amount to bias – Where none of the appeal grounds have been established – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant’s appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the appeal grounds were unmeritorious and the appellant made unjustified and serious allegations to impugn the primary judge – Where the incomprehensible aspects of the appeal contributed to the respondent’s costs – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Summary dismissal – Where the Amended Notice of Appeal contains four well recognised potential errors – Where the particulars of the grounds suggest there may be difficulty in succeeding on the appeal – Where it cannot be said the appeal has no prospects of success – Application for summary dismissal dismissed – Appellant’s application for an adjournment dismissed given the application was decided in her favour.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL –SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Appeal from declaratory order – Appellants beneficiaries of testamentary trust – coversheet of Notice of Appeal naming wrong party as appellant – Where the first respondent sought summary dismissal of the appeal – Where the appellants sought leave to amend Note of Appeal – Application for summary dismissal dismissed – leave to amend granted

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – Where the father appealed from all final parenting and property orders – Where his appeal was deemed abandoned due to his failure to file the transcript on time – Where the father asserted the delay was modest – Where the father admitted the entirety of the transcript had still not been filed – Where the appeal appears to have no merit – Where the father could not show some miscarriage of justice ostensibly resulted from his allegedly incompetent legal representation at trial – Where there was nothing unusual about the expert witnesses altering their opinion during cross-examination when confronted with new factual evidence – Where simple dissatisfaction with add-back findings is not a competent ground of appeal – Where the Magistrate acknowledged how add-backs were the exception rather than the rule – Where the father did not seek any adjournment of the trial on account of the alleged late financial disclosure by the mother and he suffered no consequential prejudice – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of registrar’s decision as to filing of documents – Where the substantive appeal has been heard and dismissed – Where the court no longer has jurisdiction to deal with procedural decisions of the registrar made prior to the appeal – Where the respondent seeks a vexatious proceedings order in relation to the applicant – Where the Response suffers the same jurisdictional flaw – Where the applicant is aware of the difficulties with running meritless applications – Where the applicant seeks to relitigate the issues determined by the primary judge and upheld on appeal – Order for the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of Transcript – Where the appellant seeks that the court provides the transcript – Whether transcript is necessary for appellant’s case – Application for the Court to provide transcript refused – Appellant relieved of obligation to provide the transcript – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where final parenting orders were made by the parties’ consent – Where no ground of appeal argues the orders impeached the anterior agreement reached between the parties – Where no ground of appeal alleges the magistrate was bereft of jurisdiction or power to make the consent orders – Where no ground of appeal alleges the appellant’s consent of the orders was inveigled or induced by fraud, mistake or some other fundamental misunderstanding – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where a 10 per cent s 75(2) adjustment was made in favour of the respondent – Where the appellant contended that he was not afforded procedural fairness to make submissions on the s 75(2) adjustment – Where the parties were afforded the opportunity to make submissions about the relevant issues – Where the appellant contends that the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Where the matters taken into account by the primary judge were clearly articulated and sufficiently described – Where the appellant contended that the s 75(2) adjustment was “manifestly excessive” – Where the orders made were not outside of the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge failed to accord him procedural fairness on the form of the orders made – Where the form of the primary judge’s order was not materially different to the orders sought by the respondent – Where the form of the primary judge’s orders were within the parameters established by the parties’ positions – Appeal dismissed – Written submissions ordered on the question of costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the applicant seeks review of the decision of the appeal registrar to reject his Notice of Appeal for filing – Where the applicant incorrectly claimed an exemption from payment of the filing fee for his Notice of Appeal – Where the time for filing an appeal then expired – Where the applicant was advised he could file an Application in an Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal – Where the applicant instead sought judicial review – Where the Notice of Appeal was correctly rejected – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Narrow ground of appeal regarding valuation of a business – Whether the primary judge erred in adopting the new valuation of the business – Where the appellant alleged it was incorrect to change one element of the valuation without changing others – Where it is common for experts to express opinions on assumptions put to them – Where the appropriate weight for an expert’s answer is a matter for the court – Where the appellant failed to challenge the new valuation at trial – Where there was no evidence to draw a Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 inference from – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – Application to adjourn the appeal hearing to allow the appellant time to file his Summary of Argument and listen to the audio of the trial to correct the transcript – Application for the appeal to be dismissed – Where the appellant has already been granted multiple indulgences – Where the utility of the transcript corrections was not identified – Where the appeal is wholly lacking in particulars and clarity – Where the appellant has not filed a Summary of Argument and failed to comply with procedural orders – Where it would be a significant injustice to the respondent to permit the appeal – Application dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the appeal registrar rejected the applicant’s Application in an Appeal seeking leave to file an appeal out of time – Where the primary judge discharged previous orders temporarily staying the parties’ financial proceedings pending the finalisation of parallel criminal proceedings prosecuted against the applicant – Where the primary judge set the financial proceedings down for trial in April 2025 – Where the criminal proceedings are set down for trial in September 2025 – Where the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case the primary judge erred in concluding the applicant would not suffer prejudice if the stay was discharged – Where the applicant alleges the primary judge took into account irrelevant considerations in concluding the applicant had acted inconsistently with the maintenance of his privilege against self-incrimination, which proposition is at least arguable – Where the respondent did not assert she would be prejudiced by the applicant being permitted to bring the appeal one day late – Orders of the appeal registrar set aside – Where the appeal registrar shall file the Notice of Appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Stay – Expedition – Where the mother appeals from final parenting orders – Where the primary judge made supplementary orders dismissing the mother’s Application in an Appeal to stay the final orders – Where the primary judge did not have jurisdiction or power to hear and determine an application filed in the appellate jurisdiction – Supplementary orders set aside – Where neither party will be personally prejudiced by the refusal of the stay application – Where the mother’s belief the refusal of the stay application will be detrimental to the children is not objective proof of the fact – Where the mother did not pursue her expedition application – Where the parties are mutually satisfied if appeal is heard by April 2025 as anticipated – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition – Where the father seeks expedition of his appeal from interim orders for the parties’ children to live with the mother from mid-January 2025 – Where the orders would require the children to relocate from Queensland to Western Australia – Where the matter is set down for final hearing in April 2025 – Where the father took one month to file his expedition application – Where the father’s argument that the appealed orders do not promote the children’s best interest is not convincing – Where the father will suffer no personal prejudice if the appeal takes its normal course – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where an injunction was previously made prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer without leave – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from two decisions of the primary judge in relation to parenting matters and her application to reopen the proceedings to adduce further evidence – Where the proposed appeals lack reasonable grounds and are therefore vexatious and are devoid of utility– Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Where the Notice of Appeal is prolix and vexatious in its current form – Where many of the grounds of appeal assert the primary judge erred by failing to accept the appellant’s case – Where it is inherently unlikely that a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) would make hundreds of errors material enough to vitiate the reasons – Notice of Appeal struck out – Where the appellant has leave to lodge an Amended Notice of Appeal for further consideration.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the primary judge made orders compelling the parties’ child to be returned to Belgium – Where the child was born in Belgium and is a Belgian citizen – Where the child was wrongfully removed by the appellant mother to Australia – Whether the primary judge erred in determining the child was habitually resident in Belgium – Where the primary judge carefully applied the principles in LK v Director-General, Department of Community Services (2009) 237 CLR 582 – Where the Belgian court had already exercised jurisdiction in respect of the child – Where the findings of the primary judge were well-founded in the evidence – Appeal dismissed – No application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Where before the primary judge the applicant sought to rely on a previously dismissed Amended Application in a Proceeding and to review a Registrar’s decision – Where proposed grounds of appeal are expressed generally without reference to any particular order – Where there is no basis for any of the proposed grounds of appeal – Where no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal – Where applicant does not have reasonable prospects of prosecuting the application for leave to appeal – Application for leave to appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Contravention – Summary dismissal – Where judgment is not a “prescribed judgment” pursuant to reg 4.02 of the Federal Court and Federal Circuit and Family Court Regulations 2022 (Cth) – Leave to appeal not required – Where appellant asserts primary judge erred in concluding compliance with Orders 8 and 9 were preconditions for spending time in Orders 29(a) and Order 29(c) – Where appellant argues primary judge erred in summarily dismissing application due to lack of evidence – Primary judge erred in determining compliance with Order 8 and Order 9 were preconditions for time in accordance with Order 29(a) – Primary judge’s intention was for Orders to function methodically upon preconditions being satisfied – Orders amended to reflect intention of primary judge pursuant to the slip rule – Appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence – No grounds of appeal challenging orders established – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from property settlement orders – Where the appellant has a shareholding in a corporation – Where the primary judge erred at law by fixing the parties with joint and several liability for a tax debt owed by the corporation – Where the tax debt is an exclusive liability of the corporation – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Self-represented parties – No application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL Parenting – Where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against an order made dismissing his application to re-open parenting proceedings – Consideration as to whether s 65DAAA codifies the rule in In the marriage of Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 (“the rule in Rice and Asplund”) – Clarification of the principles which apply to applications under s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the wording of s 65DAAA creates a meaningful distinction and departure from application of common law principles – Whether the Court is still required to make a finding about changed circumstances or alternatively, merely “consider” whether or not there has been any change – Where parliament’s intention was to codify the rule in Rice and Asplund – Where a literal interpretation of the wording of s 65DAAA is at odds with the purpose of the statute and leads to absurdity – No discernible difference between the threshold to be applied under the new statutory regime and the common law principles espoused by the rule in Rice and Asplund – Appealable error established – Leave to appeal granted – Remitted for rehearing of the application under s 65DAAA – Costs certificate granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant appeals from a costs order made against him arising from parenting proceedings – Where the respondent conceded the appeal in part – Where the remaining grounds allege bias and errors in reasons – No bias or errors identified – Application in an appeal to adduce further evidence – Where the material the appellant sought to adduce was not relevant to the grounds of appeal – Application dismissed – Appeal allowed in part – Respondent’s application for costs remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Limited evidence available to the primary judge – Where no retrospective valuation of the farming property was conducted by an appropriately qualified expert –– Consideration of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the factual error was material to the outcome of proceedings – Appeal allowed – Orders of the primary judge set aside – Matter remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge – Costs certificate granted to the appellant.

FAMILY LAW – Application to reopen parenting and property matters – Where the father seeks to reopen proceedings regarding parenting – Where the mother did not oppose reopening of parenting matters and sought to lead new evidence herself – Where the mother subsequently sought to reopen property matters– Leave is granted to all parties to reopen evidence in parenting matters only.

Parenting - Sole Parental responsibility – Where both parents seek sole decision-making responsibility, including decision making for medical matters – Father is granted sole decision-making responsibility whilst the mother is entitled to information and input regarding the medical treatment of the children.

Property - Division of property - Where an adjustment is required - Where the wife contends that the husband has not disclosed certain financial resources that are available to him –– Court finds transactions during parties relationship did not result in an ongoing interest for the husband.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Where the applicant becomes self-represented during the course of the hearing – Where s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prevents the applicant from cross-examining the respondent – Where the contravention proceedings are adjourned to ensure procedural and substantive fairness – Where the Court varies orders pursuant to s 70NBC of the Act.

RECUSAL – Where the Court has previously made credit findings about the parties – Where the Court has informed the parties that there is an arguable case for recusal – Where the parties decline to prosecute a recusal application – Where the Court recuses itself.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to New Zealand – Where the father alleges wrongful removal – Whether the father consented to the mother relocating the children to Australia – Where the mother has a mild intellectual disability and is reliant on her family for daily support – Where the maternal family have relocated to Australia –Where the mother has established a reasonable and acceptable reason for her refusal to return to New Zealand – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation established – Grave risk of harm cannot be adequately ameliorated by available protective measures – Discretion to return not exercised – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – part heard trial – competing applications for interim parenting orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – EX TEMPORE – INTERIM – Where both parties seek partial property settlement with the primary purpose of paying legal fees – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $400,000 – Where the husband concedes that there should be a partial property settlement to the wife but seeks to limit such payment to $200,000 as this amount is sufficient for the wife to pay legal fees – Where the Court is satisfied that there are potentially issues of factual and legal complexity which would warrant the involvement of senior counsel and likely extend the hearing beyond the time estimated by the husband – Where the husband seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $200,000 – Where the husband has had available to him considerable amounts of money held in offshore jurisdictions and holds most of the assets of significant value – Where orders are made for the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $400,000 – Where the Court declines to make orders for the husband to receive any partial property settlement.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissal – De facto relationship – Where Respondent sought dismissal of application for property adjustment orders and sought no property adjustment orders – Where the Applicant is self-represented – Where the Applicant is in default of orders for filing of trial material – Where Applicant has filed no trial material – Where Applicant was put on notice as to consequences of non-compliance with trial directions – Where there was an earlier threshold hearing on the question of the length of the de facto relationship – Where the Respondent has complied with trial directions – Where it was not appropriate in the circumstances to receive material filed by the Applicant on earlier occasions into evidence – Where the Applicant provided no evidence upon which a determination that it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ interests in property could be made – Where proceedings have been before the Court for a substantial period and have been subject to significant delay – Where the Applicant contended that the delay was a product of the Respondent’s conduct and her claimed disability – Where it is found that the delay is largely attributable to the behaviour of the Applicant, which includes default – Where it is found that accommodations were made for the Applicant’s claimed disability – Where r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) considered and applied – Where the practice and procedure provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) considered and applied – Where it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application for property adjustment orders – Where the Respondent does not seek the repayment by the Applicant of funds expended from those held in trust for the purpose of paying for legal fees – Where the Respondent has indicated that an undertaking would be given to that effect – Where the Applicant’s Application in a Proceeding seeking that such of the Rules in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) as would prevent an application for costs associated with the threshold hearing are dispensed with – Where orders made for dismissal of Initiating Application and all extant applications.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Voir Dire – preliminary question – whether evidence sought to be adduced by a lay witness without prior notice in cross examination is sufficiently probative to allow admission - consequence of admission of late evidence likely to be adjournment part heard of final hearing – evidence goes to significant factual issue in dispute – issue whether mother remains in a relationship with, or continues to expose children to, a person who is alleged to pose an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children - evidence relevant and potentially highly probative – evidence on voir dire admitted into evidence in trial - an adjournment will be granted if necessary to allow the late evidence to be addressed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where prior decision was made for four siblings – one teenage child’s wish was to live with father - where orders were made for all siblings to live with the mother and relocate a significant distance – three younger sibling including child to spend time with father mainly in holidays - after delivery of judgment child refused to return to mother’s residence after spending time with the father – where it had been established at the prior proceedings that this child had a strong affinity to the father and had expressed a strong desire to live with him – where child continued to maintain this strong view – psychological risks to child of forced change of residence – real risk of absconding - finding in the best interests of the child to vary final orders – child to reside with the father – child’s time with mother and siblings co-ordinated so siblings spend entire holidays together.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application - international relocation - where the mother seeks to relocate the child’s residence to New Zealand for nine months – where the father opposes that application – where the child is currently spending overnight time with the father – where the final orders sought by the mother include permission to relocate the residence of the subject child to New Zealand - where the mother’s interim application for relocation is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for an adjustment under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband was the primary income earner and the wife was the primary caregiver for the parties’ children – Issues of credit – Non-disclosure – Where the wife failed to provide items of jewellery for valuation – Where the wife has returned to the workforce but the husband has remained unemployed – Where the wife’s inheritance and superannuation must be treated as a post-separation asset – Financial orders made for payment of monies to the husband and for the wife to retain her property.

ADDBACKS – Exception not the rule –Whether legal fees of criminal proceedings should be added back – Where the wife contends that the husband should have declared bankruptcy – Where the husband was in his right to defend criminal proceedings – Where the legal expenses were reasonably incurred – Where the husband’s expenditure on legal fees was neither wasteful, reckless or wonton – Where an addback is sought due to the asserted “loss of businesses” – Where the wife’s allegations that the husband engaged in dishonest and illegal conduct does not satisfy the burden of proof – Where the husband contends that the wife’s reckless conduct led to a significant reduction in the sale price of the former matrimonial home – Where the husband asserts that the wife provided information to a journalist knowing it would create adverse media publicity and diminish the sale price of the property – Where any reduction could not be accurately quantified – Finding some items be added back with the balance to be considered under s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

RESTITUTION – Associated jurisdiction of the Court – Where the wife sold two motor vehicles belonging to the second respondent at the time of the sale – Where the Court does not accept the wife’s account of the sale price – Where there is a lacuna in the evidence regarding the advertisement of the motor vehicles for sale – Consideration of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505 [93 ER 664] – Facilitation principle – Wife to pay the second respondent $130,000 as compensation.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the children should spend time and communicate with the father – Whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility and decision-making authority – Where the father is in gaol – Where the father has been convicted of multiple domestic violence offences against the mother – No time or communication between the children and the father ordered on a final basis.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – PARENTING – where the teenage son lives with the father – where there has been strong resistance displayed by the son to spending time with the mother – reasonable attempts to comply with the orders – reasonable excuse – application for contravention dismissed – interim parenting orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the de facto husband caused a subpoena to be issued to the de facto wife’s solicitors for the production of the file of her previous solicitors who represented her in historical discontinued proceedings – Where the de facto wife objects to the subpoena claiming legal professional privilege – Where the de facto husband contends the de facto wife has waived legal professional privilege – Where waiver is not made out – Subpoena struck out – Where the de facto wife caused subpoenas to be issued to three corporations that have provided loans to corporations of the de facto husband – Where the de facto husband objects to the subpoenas on the basis of abuse of process, relevance, and fishing – Where such objections are not made out – Notices of Objection to subpoena are struck out.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the mother and father agreed that the mother should have sole parental responsibility, the children live with her, and that the children be permitted to travel overseas with the mother – Issue remains as to what time the father should spend with the children and whether it should be supervised – Where the ICL and mother sought orders for the father’s time to be once a month for not less than three hours and supervised – Where the father sought orders for unsupervised time each alternate weekend and each alternate Wednesday overnight as well as time during half of each school holiday period – Where the Court is satisfied that the arrangements that promote the safety of the mother and children are ones that provide for the father’s time with the children to be limited and supervised – Orders made for supervised time to occur at the father’s cost once a month for no less than three hours.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena – Where there is an objection to a subpoena – Where the subpoena sought production of documents over an eight year period – Where compliance would require review of 765,487 emails – Where documents needed to be reviewed against the scope of the subpoena and whether there was an entitlement to claim legal professional privilege – Where it is determined that the scope of the subpoena, as drafted, was burdensome and oppressive – Where the applicant has paid retrieval costs – Where the subpoena is set aside and the applicant ordered to pay further costs.