FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CROSS-APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where both parties agree that the primary judge mischaracterised a bank account belonging to the wife as having a NIL balance – Where both parties agree that this was a material error – Where Appellant husband argues this error caused him to receive less than was intended by the primary judge – Where Cross-appellant wife argues this error meant that her contributions were undervalued – Finding made that the trial judge had adequately considered the wife's contributions – Cross-appeal dismissed – Where both parties seek re-exercise of discretion if appeal allowed – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where final orders were made for a change in the primary residence of the child from the appellant to the respondent– Where there was significant delay in the delivery of judgment – Where the child had lived with the appellant and had no contact with the respondent at the time of judgment delivery – Where the primary judge proceeded on the assumption that the child’s circumstances had not materially changed since the trial – Where the primary judge did not have the benefit of any updated evidence or input of the child –Where the appellant asserted that the delay resulted in orders being made on the basis of materially outdated evidence and circumstances – Where the child’s age was relevant to the weight attributed to the child’s views at trial–Where the Full Court held that the child had a right to have their views considered in light of their increased maturity and level of understanding – Where costs certificates were granted to both parties – Where the appeal was upheld

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Leave to appeal – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal orders refusing leave to institute proceedings for relief out of time – Whether there was an error of law as to the primary judge’s findings in relation to hardship – Where the applicant contended the primary judge considered the possibility of hardship and not the fact of hardship by using the language “could” instead of “would” suffer hardship – Where the respondent contended that a reading of the reasons as a whole reveal the primary judge concluded the applicant “would” suffer hardship – Where there is sufficient doubt to warrant the decision being reconsidered – Where a substantial injustice would result if leave were refused – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Remitter ordered – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant sought to appeal orders made by a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia dismissing the appellant’s application for indemnity costs – Where each ground asserts a mixture of discretionary, legal and/or factual error – Where no ground has merit – Where the respondent sought an order that the appellant pay her costs – Where the appellant opposed an order for costs – Where the appeal was without merit and it is appropriate to make a costs order – Costs ordered in the sum of $5,000.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Adjournment – Where the appellant seeks an adjournment of the appeal hearing – Where preferred counsel for the appellant is unavailable on the date of the appeal hearing – Anticipated additional costs – Where the respondent does not consent to an adjournment – Where it is essential that the appeal is disposed of without further delay – Where the application for an adjournment of appeal is dismissed – Where the appellant has been wholly unsuccessful – Where a costs order is made

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – DFRDB SUPERANNUATION PENSION – Where the wife sought a splitting order at trial in respect of the husband's DFRDB pension – Where the trial judge concluded a splitting order was not able to be made on the basis that the DFRDB pension was a "financial resource" – Where this misapprehension led to a failure to consider the matters in s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as they may relate to the DFRDB pension – Where trial judge's reasons do not make clear whether the findings regarding the husband's initial contributions were diminished by a gift soon after cohabitation – Where nearly half of the property settlement received by the wife at trial was in the form of superannuation assets to which she did not have present access – Where the trial judge did not have sufficient regard to the nature and characteristics of the wife's superannuation entitlements – Where both parties seek re-exercise of discretion if appeal allowed – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Consideration of Robb & Robb contributions.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – Respondent changed orders sought on morning of hearing – Appellant not present at hearing – Failure to afford appellant procedural fairness – Appeal allowed.

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Assessment of Contributions – Error in approach – Implicit assumption of equality as starting point – Appeal allowed.

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Assessment of Contributions – Significant error of fact by presiding magistrate – Appeal allowed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL –Appeal against judgment dismissing recusal application – Where principles regarding denial procedural fairness not properly considered or applied – Where the test for apprehended bias in Ebner incorrectly applied – Where, cumulatively, a fair-minded lay observer, cognisant of all relevant facts, might reasonably apprehend the primary judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resumed hearing of the part-heard trial – No relevant delay in bringing recusal application – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to a judge other than the primary judge for retrial – Costs certificates ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant made an oral application for an adjournment of the appeal hearing listed before the Full Court – Where the respondent and the ICL consented to the application – Where the parties have complied with procedural directions and the matter is ready for hearing – Where it is unclear how the appellant’s reasons for the adjournment could preclude the hearing from proceeding as scheduled – Where the grant of the adjournment would not be an efficient use of judicial resources or an effective disposal of the Court’s caseload – Where the consent of the respondent and the ICL to the adjournment is not reflective of their statutory duty to help the Court fulfil its overarching purpose – Oral application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the applicant applied to stay substantive orders pending the outcome of his appeal from those orders – Where the primary judge granted a partial stay of the substantive orders – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from the stay orders – Where the appeal from the substantive orders was dismissed – Where the appeal from the stay orders is now entirely futile – Where there is no longer a viable justiciable controversy – Where the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the intended stay appeal – Application for leave to appeal and appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from final parenting orders for the children to live with the father and spend fortnightly time with the mother – Where the father appeals against the order for the children to spend time with the mother – Where the mother cross-appeals against all the orders – Alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations – Challenges to weight – Adequacy of reasons – Where the primary judge’s reasons were finely nuanced – Where the outcome was not plainly wrong or unreasonable – No ground enjoys merit – Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to obtain the transcript – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Where the applicant seeks an expansion of the contents of the Appeal Book – Leave granted to file a Contested Appeal Book – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Recovery order – Where appellant father did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Where there is no merit in the appeal – Where the orders subject of the appeal are no longer operative – No utility in allowing the appeal – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EX-TEMPORE – Property settlement – Where parties were in a relationship for 34 years – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions at 75 percent in favour of the respondent and 25 per cent in favour of the appellant – Primary judge made an adjustment under s 75(2) resulting in 88 per cent distribution in favour of the respondent and 22 per cent in favour of the appellant – Where the appellant argued inadequacy of reasons – A 22 per cent distribution in favour of the appellant was outside the ambit of a reasonable assessment pursuant to the test in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – Parties agreed on terms of settlement – Orders made by consent – Appeal allowed by consent – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the appellant father attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance the day before the hearing – Where the appellant did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Appeal dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Rules. -No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Role of Pleadings – Where the appellant’s grounds are overly expansive, overlapping and repetitive – Where the appellant’s sole contention was that funds that he transferred from a bank account in China to Australia were charged with a resulting trust in his favour – Where the appellant could not demonstrate in the appeal that the funds were beneficially his – Where the appellant could offer no support for the proposition that he had an unrebuttable proprietary interest in those funds – Appeal dismissed – Orders made for written submissions as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the wife appeals from a divorce order – Where the wife contends she was unfairly deprived of sufficient time within which to contest the divorce application – Where the wife had sufficient time to prepare for the divorce hearing and was heard – Where the husband believed the marriage had broken down irretrievably – Where there could be no reasonable likelihood of reconciliation if one spouse is staunchly opposed to it – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS – Where the grounds of appeal are dense, repetitive and prolix – Where the construction of Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) directs focus to the consideration of safety to a child or another person when determining a parenting regime that best promotes the best interests of the child – Where no complaint on appeal has merit – Where serious, scandalous allegations are made by the appellant absent a scintilla of cogent evidence to support them – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum – Appellant referred to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the primary judge refused the appellant de facto wife leave to commence proceedings for financial relief out of time – Where the appellant’s Initiating Application did not plead the substantive financial relief she sought – Where the primary judge refused to allow the appellant to amend her Initiating Application – Where complaints of denial of procedural fairness are really complaints of discretionary error – Where both parties filed documents setting out the evidence for the resolution of the financial claim – Where there was still an evidentiary premise to permit the assessment of hardship despite the appellant’s failure to particularise her financial claim in her Initiating Application – Where to have permitted the appellant to amend her claim would not have caused the respondent any countervailing prejudice – Where the parties are engaged in allied litigation in respect of their children, the result of which proceedings would inevitably affect the parties’ financial responsibilities – Where the refusal of the appellant’s adjournment and amendment applications was manifestly unreasonable – Where the anterior decision refusing the adjournment vitiates the dismissal order – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Application remitted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant husband appeals against parenting orders made in his absence – Where the appellant was removed from the courtroom and alleges he was denied procedural fairness – Where the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to present his case – Where the appellant was warned numerous times at trial about the need to conduct himself properly – No denial of procedural fairness established – Where the appellant alleges bias on the part of the trial judge – Where a reading of the transcript reveals no such bias – The use of generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Family Law proceedings – Where the appellant deployed generative AI to prepare his written documents – Where these written documents cite fictitious cases – Where this violates the obligations of a party to litigation not to mislead the court or their opponent – Where this use of AI also has the potential to breach Pt XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where all grounds of appeal are misconceived and without merit – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant on the day of hearing – Where the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an application for costs – Consideration of relevant principles under s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where there are no circumstances warranting departure from the usual principle that each party bears their own costs – No order as to costs

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals from final parenting and property orders – No error demonstrated in parenting orders – Where the husband sought to resile from his former concession of the value of his proprietary interest in a foreign property – Where the husband was in default of procedural orders and disclosure obligations – Where the financial cause was determined on the evidence adduced by the wife – Where the primary judge was empowered to take remedial measures to ensure fairness to the wife – Where permitting the husband to adduce belatedly disclosed evidence would have denied the wife procedural fairness – Where the husband unilaterally invested and lost $225,000 in a fraudulent scheme – Where the husband contends the primary judge should not have notionally added back the funds as his property interest – Where the primary judge applied long-standing authority to uncontroversial facts – Where the husband’s challenge to the enforceability of certain orders is rejected – Where the husband’s complaint the orders requiring the sale of two investment properties and the split of his superannuation interest were manifestly unreasonable fails – Where the Court rejects the husband’s invitation to disregard the primary judge’s acceptance of and reliance upon the wife’s evidence as being truthful and accurate – Where the wife was entitled to reject the husband’s pre-trial offers of settlement – Appeal dismissed – Applications in an appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – Show Cause – Where the appellant father was invited to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where final parenting orders (“the orders”) were made with the parties’ consent – Where the father was legally represented when the orders were made – Where the father complains the orders were not fully explained to him – Where parties are bound by the conduct of their legal representatives – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant contends the primary judge erred by summarily dismissing his contravention application – Where final orders were made between the parties in 2018 requiring the respondent to pay the applicant a cash sum – Where the respondent paid the cash sum in 2019 – Where the applicant alleged the delayed payment of the cash sum caused him to incur interest on an overdue account – Where the primary judge had no power to grant the remedial order for reimbursement which the applicant sought – Where the applicant is still indebted to the respondent under an unpaid costs order made against him – Where the Court has discretionary power to refuse to entertain a fresh application brought by a litigant who is in contempt of other orders made in the same proceedings – Leave refused – Application dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Liabilities from Tax Returns – Tax liability -Where the primary judge declined to include a tax liability in the balance sheet – where the appellant had disbursed funds rather than paying the tax, APPEAL – PROPERTY – Valuation -Where the appellant sought the sale of his business – Whether the primary judge was required to order sale – Whether consideration of costs or potential CGT required, APPEAL – PROPERTY – Whether the primary judge double counted business profits as both income of the appellant and when they formed the basis for the valuation of the business – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Adjournment – Where the respondent seeks an adjournment of the appeal hearing – Where counsel for the respondent is unavailable on the date of the appeal hearing – Where the respondent would incur considerable extra legal costs by having to secure representation by alternate counsel – Where counsel for the appellant admitted his client would not be unduly prejudiced by the appeal hearing being pushed back three weeks – Adjournment granted – Extension granted to file the relevant documents in the appeal – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from final parenting orders providing for the children to live with the father and spend supervised time with her on four occasions each year after a six-month moratorium period – Where the mother’s lawyers withdrew their representation during the trial – Where the primary judge refused the mother’s application to adjourn the trial – Where the mother’s mischaracterised ground of the denial of procedural fairness fails – Where the mother failed to identify how the decision to refuse the adjournment was incorrect – Where the mother’s contention her legal representation at trial was so incompetent as to cause the trial to be unfair fails – Whether the primary judge fell into legal error by ordering the children’s time with the mother be supervised indefinitely – Where the mother did not advance any fall-back position supposing the children were moved to live with the father – Where the primary judge found the mother posed an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children – Where there was no evidentiary premise upon which the primary judge could logically make the supervision period finite – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Where at the hearing of the appeal the appellant abandoned all but one ground of appeal – Where the appellant asserts the primary judge did not provide adequate reasons for an adjustment under s 75(2) – Where the pathway of reasoning is clear – No error established – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave to appeal – Harmful proceedings – Where the primary judge made interlocutory injunctive orders that were not directed towards the applicant – Where the primary judge had previously restrained the applicant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave – Where the applicant sought a grant of leave to cross-appeal from the orders of the primary judge – Where all grounds of appeal are bereft of merit – Where the applicant has not established the proposed appeal is not vexatious – Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application that the primary judge recuse themselves from the proceedings – Ostensible or apprehended bias – Primary judge attempted to engage the Independent Children’s Lawyer to encourage the parties to engage in settlement negotiations – Leave required to appeal – Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692 two strand test – Decision of primary judge was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered – No substantial injustice found to result if leave were refused – Primary judge had not closed their mind – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant sought to adduce evidence that was available to her at the time of trial – Where appellant has failed to explain why this further evidence was not tendered at trial – Where this proposed evidence would not demonstrate any error on the part of the trial judge – Application dismissed., 

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge made various errors of fact and law – Where it was alleged that the primary judge did not have regard to relevant factors – Where each of the primary judge's findings and conclusions were open on the evidence – Where the primary judge’s reasons are adequate – Where no appealable error by the primary judge is demonstrated – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the orders make no allowance for the child to spend time with the father – Where the father caused a car accident which killed the child’s brother – Where the father pleaded guilty to criminal charges resulting from the car accident – Whether the primary judge failed to give sufficient weight to the child’s positive relationship with the father – Where the mother’s genuine belief the child was not safe with the father impaired her capacity as the residential carer – Where the primary judge expressly considered and weighed the factors which favoured the father’s case – Where the primary judge gave adequate reasons – Whether the primary judge made a discretionary error when making no order for the child to spend time with the father – Where the parties sought the cause be finalised and therefore no review mechanism could be built into the orders – Where the single expert psychiatrist and the court child expert gave uncertain prognostications as to the mother’s emotional recovery – Where the primary judge hoped to preserve a basal connection between the child and the father by making orders for the re-introduction of written communication between them after a moratorium of 12 months – Where refraining to make orders to restore or forbid the child’s future physical interaction with the father was neither an error of law, fact or discretion – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Costs – Costs certificates – Where respondent unsuccessful in resisting appeal – Application for costs refused

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave to appeal – Harmful proceedings – Where the primary judge made interlocutory financial and parenting orders and restrained the applicant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave – Where the applicant sought a grant of leave to appeal from the orders of the primary judge – Where all grounds of appeal are bereft of merit – Where the applicant has not established the proposed appeal is not vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant seeks to amend the grounds of appeal and summary of argument – Where the appellant has already filed an Amended Notice of Appeal expanding to 31 grounds of appeal – Where there is a large overlap between the original and new submissions – Where new complaints are not properly articulated – Where the respondent’s summary of argument is due in several days – Where the respondent should not be expected to respond to an amended appeal on such short notice – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the applicant successfully resisted the first respondent’s application to bring an appeal out of time, but is aggrieved by the content of the reasons for decision delivered by the appeal registrar – Where the appeal registrar made no finding of fact and benignly recited the litigation history between the parties – Where there is no jurisdiction or power to amend, redact or delete portions of the appeal registrar’s reasons – Where there is no basis to suppress the reasons – Where sufficient privacy is given when the reasons are not publishable without anonymisation – Where the orders made by the appeal registrar need not be disturbed – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Transcript – Application to dispense with requirement to file transcript – Where the applicant failed to attend the hearing – Where the appeal will be deemed abandoned if the application is dismissed – Where dismissal of the application is likely to bring further litigation – Application adjourned to the hearing of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Whether trial judge erred in failing to consider an affidavit – Appeal dismissed – Appeal determined to be wholly without merit and lacked any prospects of success – Assertion by appellant found to be patently false – Submission by counsel for the appellant amounted to misconduct – Costs ordered on an indemnity basis – Exceptional circumstances – Proceedings not properly initiated.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from final property orders – Where grounds of appeal allege the primary judge erred in law by failing to take account of the appellant’s updated liabilities after the evidence was reopened – Where the appellant alleged incompetence of his lawyers in failing to file evidence caused factual error – No denial of procedural fairness – No error of law – Where it is not established the trial miscarried because of the incompetence or failures of the appellant’s lawyers – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application to adduce further evidence – Where some of the material could demonstrate the orders appealed from were erroneous – Where some of the material bears upon why the evidence was not adduced before the primary judge and the appellant’s arguments of incompetent legal representation and miscarriage of justice – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from costs order – where the primary judge ordered the appellant to be liable for the respondent’s costs of the substantive property proceedings – leave to appeal not required – Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence partly allowed –– where the appellant alleges the primary judge fell into error in application of s 117(2) and considerations under s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) –– no error established – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from an interlocutory determination by the primary judge – Allegations of denial of procedural fairness and apprehended bias without merit – Where the applicant contends the primary judge erred in an application of the Harman undertaking as to affidavits and a transcript – Where the primary judge found the affidavit and transcript were impressed with an implied undertaking which necessitated consideration as to whether special circumstances existed permitting their use – Where the primary judge fell into error as the affidavit and transcript were not caught by the common law restrictions as to use – Where the Full Court is not satisfied substantial injustice would be occasioned if leave were not granted – Leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING –Where the primary judge did not provide adequate reasons for his rejection of certain family violence allegations – Where the primary judge made a generalised adverse credit finding – Where the primary judge failed to give proper consideration to the unchallenged evidence of the mother – Appeal allowed – Where costs certificates were issued to all parties.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from two sets of orders – Where the first application relates to a harmful proceedings order against the applicant – Where the complaints of the applicant are specious and misconceived – Where the intended appeal is vexatious – Where the second application relates to procedural orders which are not amenable to appeal – Where to intended appeal is vexatious – Leave refused – Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Summary dismissal of the applicant’s application in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia to set aside property orders – Where the applicant claims the respondent failed to disclose a property interest under a will and a power of attorney prior to the parties entering consent orders – Alleged procedural unfairness – Claims the magistrate failed to take the applicant’s case at its highest – Where it is only assertions of facts that are to be taken at their highest – Where the magistrate followed the ordinary course – Discussion of whether a power of attorney gives rise to property rights capable of division – No error identified – Leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Orders for the respondent to have sole parental responsibility – Orders for the child to spend time with the appellant as agreed in writing “but at the sole discretion” of the respondent – Findings the child would derive benefit from a relationship with the appellant – Implicit finding the respondent would facilitate time with the appellant – Lack of reasons – Where the further evidence confirms the implicit finding was wrong – Failure to take into account relevant considerations – Error must be addressed regardless of the form of the grounds of appeal – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against orders dismissing her interlocutory application in her absence – Where the applicant contends she was unaware of the hearing date – Where the applicant was properly served with response documents which disclosed the appointed hearing date – Where the applicant was unable to discharge the burden of demonstrating the application for leave to appeal stands any reasonable prospect of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Appeal from orders providing for the child to live with the respondent in Australia or the United States – Where the appellant contended the primary judge made a finding the respondent would obtain permanent residency in the United States – Where the contention is misconstrued – Where the submissions accepted there were a number of pathways to permanent residency – Where the primary judge was satisfied the respondent may be able to obtain permanent residency – Adequacy of reasons – Relocation governed by general parenting principles – Where the grounds do not engage with the finding it was in the child’s best interests to live with the respondent in Australia or the United States – No error established – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Harmful proceedings order – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from a harmful proceedings injunction against her – Where several grounds of appeal are misconceived as they complain about earlier events in the proceedings – Where the complaints of denial of procedural fairness are incorrect – Where the applicant waived the complaint of bias by making no disqualification application to the magistrate – Where the proposed appeal lacks reasonable ground and is vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – Show Cause – Where the applicant was invited to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where the wife appeals the grant of the husband’s application for divorce – Where none of the grounds of appeal purport to explain any appealable error made by the primary judge – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge erred by denial of procedural fairness – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge impermissibly added back monies withdrawn by the appellant from his SMSF – Where the appellant contended the primary judge dealt with the proceeds of sale of a property impermissibly – Where the appellant submitted that the superannuation splitting order made by the primary judge was made without first having given procedural fairness to the trustee of the superannuation fund – Where the respondent conceded that procedural fairness should have been afforded to the trustee of the superannuation fund – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Consideration of addbacks in light of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) – Costs certificates issued to both parties.