FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – change of residence application by the father – mother’s application for children to continue living with her – children have not attended school for prolonged periods – the eldest has not bathed in two years – the mother lacks the required parental capacity – mother unable to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the children and father – mother unable to promote the best interests of the children – father able to promote the best interests of the children – no risk associated with the father – change of residence order made – imposition of a three month moratorium.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim hearing – Application for adjournment of final hearing – Where there is an apportionment of damages pending which may increase the asset pool – Where there are significant assets available for division – Where the husband opposes an adjournment – Adjournment denied – Interim property settlement – Where the parties are diametrically opposed in their positions on contributions – Where the husband does not have funds to meet projected legal costs – Where the husband can meet his living expenses – Where funds for living expenses would then be unavailable for division – Partial property settlement granted in part – Injunction on company funds – Where the wife’s use of funds has been for normal business activity – Where there is no evidence of dispositions intended to defeat the husband’s claim – Injunction denied.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where property was acquired by the spouse parties from the wife’s parents at a significant discount, subject to a 20 year lease back to them – Where the wife’s parents were joined as the second and third respondents – Where the second and third respondents seek a declaration that they are the beneficial owners of the property – Pleadings – Consideration of whether the second and third respondents have an equitable interest in the property – Consideration of a lease over the property – Where there had been previous litigation in the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal regarding and upholding the lease – Where the affidavits of the second and third respondents were improperly drawn in breach of the solicitors’ professional obligations – Finding that the second and third respondents have no equitable interest in the property – Finding that the property is subject to a 20 year lease in favour of the second and third respondents – Where the wife is in receipt of lump sum and periodic compensation payments – Where the wife contributed part of the lump sum compensation payments to the purchase of a property with her subsequent partner, the fourth respondent – Where the husband seeks several addbacks – Consideration of the myriad of contributions of the spouse parties – Kennon argument by the wife rejected – Finding that, by virtue of the acquisition of the property and the compensation payments, the wife’s overall contributions were in excess of those of the husband – Adjustment in favour of the husband on account of s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) factors – Division of property 42.5 per cent to the husband and 57.5 per cent to the wife – Superannuation splitting order made approximately equalising the spouse parties’ entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Child aged six years – Allegations of sexual abuse – Where the respondent seeks a finding that the child was sexually abused by the applicant – Where the respondent concedes in closing submissions that the evidence does not support a positive finding that sexual abuse occurred – Consideration of the reliability of the child’s disclosures – Where the child has been subjected to repeated investigations, assessments, interviews and discussions – Where the Court finds the allegations have not been proved – Consideration of unacceptable risk of harm – Where the Court finds no unacceptable risk of harm – Consideration of meaningful relationship – Where the child has not spent time with the applicant since 2023 – Where the Court finds that the child would benefit from a meaningful relationship with the applicant – Where the ICL promotes a reversal of primary care after a moratorium period – Orders for the child to spend a period of 28 days with the applicant and to live with the respondent thereafter – Orders made for a graduated increase in time with the applicant – Best interests.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – Return of child to New Zealand – Where the mother asserts exceptions to return – Whether there is a grave risk of harm – Whether the child objects – Whether left behind parent acquiesced to the child remaining in Australia – Exceptions not made out – Order made for return of the child.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders –Parental responsibility – Consultation – Spend time arrangements – Allegations of family violence –Where credibility issues – Where findings of use family violence made – Where findings of family violence relevant notwithstanding no issues of risk to the child – Where order made for mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where orders made for gradually increasing time with father– Where orders made for introduction of overnight time – Where certain orders made by consent – Where orders restricting international travel not made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where final property orders were made by consent in the Supreme Court of NSW in 2008 – Application to exclude evidence based on estopped – Where the parties were in a relationship for a further 12 years – Contributions assessment – Whether the parties initial contributions were equal – Where the husband contends greater initial contributions – Where the wife seeks a contributions adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 –Where the husband denied all incidents of family violence – Where the Court finds that the husband perpetrated family violence such that a contributions adjustment is warranted – Whether the husband provided full and frank disclosure – Where the husband unilaterally borrowed funds pre and post separation without knowledge or consent – Where the wife seeks adjustment under s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Court determines 70/30 in favour of the wife is just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders – With whom the children live – Best interests of the children – Where no current issues of risk raised – Where the Mother lives in Country B and the Father lives in Australia – Where the children have been living between Australia and Country B as part of a three-month about arrangement which was reached by consent – Where each parent’s proposal as to where the children live has advantages and disadvantages – Where orders made for the children to live with the Mother in Country B and spend time with the Father – Where orders relating to children’s time with the Father in the event they live in Country B with the Mother made by consent – Where certain orders, including in relation to joint decision-making in relation to major long-term issues and video communication with the non-resident parent, made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the husband disposed of assets to defeat the wife’s anticipated relief under Part VIII of the Family Law Act – Where the wife made limited financial contributions to the children of the relationship in the period subsequent to separation.

PROPERTY – Kennon considerations as to contributions – Consideration of s 75(2) matters.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting orders are reconsidered with the agreement of the parents – Where children live with the Mother – Where final orders providing for the Father to spend time with the children were discharged at interim hearing – Where there is an extensive litigation history between the parents – Where Father seeks that children live with him – Where Mother seeks an order for no time with the Father – Where findings in previous proceedings in relation to family violence adopted pursuant to s 69ZT of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the children’s safety from harm relates to psychological and emotional harm if orders are made for time with the Father – Where orders made for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where orders made for the children to spend no time with the Father – Where certain restraints made against the Father pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Mother is at liberty to relocate to the United Kingdom with the children – Where no orders made for Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs due to the Father’s financial circumstances.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Where the wife contends the husband has diluted his interests in various corporate entities to remove assets from the available pool – Claims pursuant to s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the accounts of the various corporate entities are in evidence but cannot be relied upon – Where the husband reduced his shareholdings but retained an entitlement to withdraw company funds – Where there is no evidence as to the ability to wind back the husband’s use of the funds – Where the s 106B claim fails – Balance sheet items – Contributions – Where the husband made greater initial contributions – Where the husband made greater financial contributions during the relationship – Where the wife had and continues to have the care of the children – Consideration of non-disclosure – Where the husband has received significant funds from the various corporate entities – Orders to the effect the wife receives 72 per cent of the available assets.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim application – Oral reasons for decision – where prior interim orders were made for mother to spend limited unsupervised time with youngest child – in circumstances where the mother has now been acquitted of the charges in a Judge alone trial in the District Court of New South Wales – where District Court reasons are now available – where District Court judge found mother to be honest and reliable witness – where expert raises concerns of alienation of child from mother – where additional unsupervised time between the mother and youngest child appropriate pending final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Where the child presently lives with the mother and spends two nights a week with the paternal grandmother – Where the father did not appear at the trial – Where the mother has a history of illicit drug use – Where the mother recently relapsed while the child was in the care of maternal relatives – Where the maternal aunt has been a reliable source of support for the mother – Where the paternal grandmother contended the mother’s illicit drug use impairs her parenting capacity – Where the paternal grandmother sought orders for the child to live with her until the mother proves her abstinence from illicit drug use over an indefinite period – Where the State child welfare agency is satisfied with the mother’s provision of care to the child – Where the child is meeting all his general developmental milestones – Where the child has a positive and connected relationship with the mother – Where the parties mutually agree it is not currently safe for the child to have a relationship with the father – Ordered the child live with the mother and she have exclusive parental responsibility for him – Ordered the child spend overnight time with the paternal grandmother.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Two pool approach – Shorter marriage – Where the parties share the care of their two young children in essentially an equal time arrangement – Where the wife has a larger income earning capacity than the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for adjournment – Where the husband sought an adjournment because he was unwell such that he could not attend court, that persons sought to be affected by the orders wished to be heard, an assertion of non-disclosure by the wife, and the late notice of the orders sought by the wife – Where the husband provided a medical certificate stating that he is unable to “work/study” –Where the Court is satisfied that the husband advanced no proper basis for adjournment – Where the efficient use of public resources such as courts are considerations which apply in the determination as to whether or not a court should grant an adjournment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for joinder – Where the wife seeks the joinder of three parties – Where the legal representative for the third and fourth respondents conceded that joinder was proper – Where the husband opposed the application for joinder on the basis that the wife’s relief against the parties was based on s 106B(1A) of the Act and in circumstances where the husband was not bankrupt there was no basis for the relief and thus joinder was unnecessary – Where the wife’s relief is actually predicated on s 106B of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied that given the relief sought by the wife, the evidence of the wife, and the consent to joinder by two of the proposed parties, it was necessary that the three proposed respondents be joined to the proceedings.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for use of funds held in the husband’s family law solicitor’s trust account – Where the wife sought the funds be used to pay the mortgage over the former matrimonial home – Where the husband, by his own admission, has dealt with funds contrary to orders of the Court – Where there is a persistent failure to comply with orders – Where there are clear deficiencies in the husband’s disclosure and findings of non-disclosure – Where the Court is satisfied that there are sufficient funds available to meet the order sought – Where it is appropriate that the relief sought by the wife be granted.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother gives evidence as to longstanding significant family violence perpetrated by the father upon herself and upon the children – Where the children corroborate their experiences as to some of the mother’s account of family violence to the ch 7 single expert – Where the potency and impact of the family violence occasioned by the father poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of the mother and the children – Orders made for the mother to be solely responsible for long-term decision making for the children, for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with or communicate with the father together with other orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Consideration of s 114UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of the role of an Independent Children’s Lawyer – Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where the mother sought to relocate the child’s residence to the United States of America – Where the father opposed the relocation – Where the mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, that the child live with her, and various proposals for time with the father – Where the father sought joint decision-making responsibility, for the child to remain living in Australia, and for the parties to have an equal-time arrangement – Where the parties have a good co-parenting relationship – Where the mother alleges the father perpetrated family violence Where the mother suffers from adverse mental health conditions – Where the relationship between the father and the child is not able to be maintained and supported if the child relocates – Where it is not in the child’s best interests for the child to relocate.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the husband caused a subpoena to issue to the wife’s former solicitors – Where the substantive proceedings relate to a challenge to a Binding Financial Agreement – Where the solicitors the subject of the subpoena were retained by the wife in respect of a claim made pursuant to s 79 of the Act – Where the wife objected to the subpoena on grounds of legal professional privilege and relevance – Where the husband contended the wife had waived legal professional privilege and that the subpoena had apparent relevance – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife had waived privilege – Where the Court is not satisfied that the subpoena had apparent relevance – Subpoena is set aside.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment – Where the matter has been accorded significant priority – Where the parties have undertaken significant preparations for the trial – Where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife makes an application for litigation funding – Where the Court finds the grounds for making an order have not been established – Where the Court makes orders for the second and third respondents to provide information.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Defended hearing – Final Orders – De facto relationship – Where the parties’ three children live with the applicant – Where the respondent claimed she owed debt to her parents – Where the respondent failed to present probative evidence of any intention to create a legal relationship of creditor and debtor with her parents – Where the applicant gave considerable financial help to the respondent following separation – Where the respondent does not pay child support – Where one child has special needs – Where the applicant’s overall entitlement to the parties’ net assets and superannuation interests is assessed at 80 per cent – Five per cent adjustment in the applicant’s favour – Ordered the applicant retain the former family home – Ordered other real property be sold and the respondent be paid a cash sum – Superannuation splitting orders made in respect of the applicant’s superannuation interest.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where both parties have instructed very experienced and specialist family law solicitors – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was only recently appointed following retirement of the former Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where it is more likely than not that consideration of the competing cases will not be adversely affected if the proceedings continue without an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim proceedings –Where Family Report raises serious concerns about the father’s parenting capacity – Where ICL supports supervised time only - Where father provided no updating evidence to address the recent allegations giving rise to serious risk concerns – Orders for the children to spend daytime only with the father in the community.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount – Where the husband has not complied with orders for disposition of the application– Consideration of factors within s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied there are circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that the each party pay their own costs – Order for the wife’s costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks costs of and incidental to interlocutory determinations on an indemnity basis, or in the alternative on a scale basis – Where the wife seeks costs of the costs application on an indemnity basis or to scale – Where the financial circumstances and conduct of the parties in the litigation are considered – Where exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the usual rule that each party pay their own costs – Where costs are fixed on an indemnity basis in part and at scale.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Modest pool – Assessment of contributions – Final property adjustment orders made that achieve justice and equity for both parties.

FAMILY LAW – SLIP RULE – COSTS – ENFORCEMENT – Consideration of rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Rules of Australia (Family Law) (2021) (Cth) –Where a two-pool approach was adopted at Final Hearing – Where it was argued that legal fees were added back to the incorrect pool – Where there was a difference of opinion as to the Court’s intention for making the relevant orders – Where the slip rule application to vary final orders was dismissed – Where the Court found that the remedy sought by the slip rule application could only be achieved by a successful appeal– Where a party unreasonably rejected an offer of settlement – Where ownership of property was passed between the parties by way of partial property distribution and the obligation to deliver the property remained – Where the enforcement application did not permit the Court to order the payment of monetary compensation in respect to the loss of the property – Where an s 79A application was required to set aside final orders in the event of impracticability – Where one party prosecuted a case based on insufficient evidentiary material in respect of alleged criminal conduct.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERY – Alteration of property interests – Two pool approach – Where the parties share the care of their children in an equal time arrangement – Where the husband has managed a modest property portfolio throughout the duration of the relationship – Where the wife has limited – Orders made as to achieve justice and equity between the parties.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife made an oral application to adduce further evidence from an expert other than a ch 7 single expert on the morning of the first day of a three day trial – Where orders had been made directing the parties to cause any ch 7 single expert evidence to be obtained and/or updated on or before the trial – Where the wife did not avail herself of the procedures pursuant to ch 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the wife served the evidence proposed to be adduced on the husband one business day before the commencement of the trial – Where the husband contends prejudice due to the lateness of the evidence – Where there may be a significant likelihood that the time and cost of the trial will be impacted should the wife be successful in her oral application – Where the husband must be afforded procedural fairness – Where the wife is not foreclosed from challenging the relevant single ch 7 expert evidence – Where the interests of justice are not compromised by refusing the adducing of the evidence – Wife’s oral application to adduce expert evidence is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – adjournment application by the first respondent – adjournment sought to allow time for adversarial expert to produce a report – intended adversarial expert engaged two weeks prior to trial – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Dispute in relation to property pool and value of assets – Where applicant husband operates a business and respondent wife performed homemaker duties – Insufficient disclosure by the husband caused complications in the valuation of the business – Initial contributions favour the husband – No medical evidence as to future needs or capacity – Property to be divided 52.5 per cent to the husband and 47.5 per cent to the wife – Five per cent adjustment in favour of the wife pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – Application for disqualification on the ground of apprehended bias – where the presiding judge previously made a number of findings of credit against the applicant – application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an application for the parties to share the ICL’s costs – Where the relevant principles prohibit costs orders despite the parties conduct.

FAMILY LAW – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where applicant is maternal grandmother – Where child’s mother deceased and father unknown – Where major long-term decisions required for the child – Where applicant seeks an order the child live with her and her husband, the maternal grandfather – Where the maternal grandfather was convicted of possessing, accessing, producing and distributing Child Exploitation Material – Where the maternal grandfather had been named on the community reporting register for five years – Where applicant did not disclose this in her affidavit supporting her Initiating Application – Where information only came to the Court’s attention by s 67ZBD material – Where Department declines to intervene – Where Department relies on an assessment that maternal grandfather is a low risk of re-offending – Where risk assessment offends Makita – Where Court will not make a live with order giving the Court’s imprimatur to the child living with a convicted child sexual abuser – Orders made for major long-term decision making – Injunctions made for child’s safety around maternal grandfather – Undertakings of maternal grandfather and two adult sons received and accepted by the Court.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where the children’s mother passed away suddenly – Where major long term decisions required – Where the children have resided with the mother, until her death, and maternal grandmother since their birth – Where the maternal grandmother has played an active role in the children’s care since their birth – Where the children’s father is not known – Where there is no reason for the applicant to return to Court for a further hearing – Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – Where a Notice of Discontinuance was filed – Where an application is made for costs – Where the applicant has been wholly unsuccessful – Where it does not appear the application had any reasonable prospect of success – Where costs are ordered on an indemnity basis fixed in the amount of $239,000.

FAMILY LAW – Application for Review of Registrar’s Decision – where recent circumstances have overtaken the utility of the application – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Oral application for interim change of residence – Where trial adjourned part-heard due to the mother having some kind of episode during cross-examination and leaving the court by ambulance for hospital – Where unchallenged psychiatric expert opinion points to the mother’s likely erratic behaviour and serious safety concerns for the children if the mother perceived her case may not prevail – Where the father and ICL seek an interim change of residence of the children to the father and moratorium on the children’s time with the mother – Where father is able to promote children’s safety – Orders made for change of residence on an interim basis and moratorium on the mother’s time.

FAMILY LAW – Question of whether the Court is seized of jurisdiction pursuant to s 111CD(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the applicant submitted that for Subdivision B, Division 4 of Part XXXIIIAA of the Act to apply the existence of a foreign competent authority and the nature and extent of its jurisdiction in relation to the person of a child, over whom this Court could also exercise jurisdiction, must be resolved by evidence – where the independent children’s lawyer and the respondent did not provide evidence on the issue assuming the applicability of s 111CD(1)(e) – where Subdivision B, Division 4 of Part XXXIIIAA of the Act does not apply.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Urgent interim application – Urgent oral application brought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where previous Orders for child to live with mother – Where child and mother living in women’s shelter – Where mother and child asked to leave women’s shelter due to mother’s drug use – Where mother admits to current drug use – Where father has assumed child into his care due to concerns regarding the mother – Where Final Hearing is listed – Previous live with orders suspended – Child to live with the father – Child to spend supervised time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the matter was listed for a final hearing in relation to both parenting and financial proceedings but where the parenting issues consumed the majority of the trial – Where final parenting orders were made and judgment was reserved in relation in financial issues following the filing of written submissions – Where both parents appealed the final parenting orders resulting in, ultimately by consent, the parenting proceedings being remitted for hearing – Where such rehearing has already consumed six days of judicial resources in late July and early August 2025 and remains part heard, with the second tranche of that hearing to commence in late October 2025 for a further four days – Where the father seeks there be no further delay to final financial orders being made, noting the children are presently in his primary care – Where the mother seeks financial orders issue following the finalisation of the parenting proceedings – Financial proceedings to remain reserved until the finalisation of the parenting proceedings due to the nature of the parties’ financial applications before the Court.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to re-open made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where leave is granted to re-open the proceedings to adduce further evidence.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs ordered for contravention finding – Costs ordered for 50% of the father’s costs determined on a party and party basis – Application for indemnity costs rejected – The mother’s financial circumstances considered – The mother failed to comply with previous orders of the court – The mother did not respond to settlement proposals – The mother’s conduct during a changeover not considered to be ‘conduct in relation to the proceedings’ under section 114UB(3)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Whether a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has jurisdiction to determine a review of a decision of a registrar exercising powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Where an order was made by a registrar exercising the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Where the registrar transferred the matter to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) – Where an Application for Review was filed by the respondent in the substantive proceedings after the transfer – Consideration of ss 100 and 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) – Where the Court requests the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) transfer the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where mother applies to adjourn the trial and seeks extension to file material contrary to Trial Directions – Where mother caused two earlier trials to be adjourned – Where the mother is legally represented – Where the serious allegations made by each parent need to be tested and a best interests determination without further delay – Where any prejudice to the mother outweighed by injustice to the other parties and the best interests of the children – Application to adjourn dismissed – Application for filing extension falls away.

FAMILY LAW – ARBITRATION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joint application for orders pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in proceedings referred to s 13E arbitration – Where it is uncontroversial that the mandatory provisions of s 102NA would apply to a s 79 trial – Where it was submitted that an arbitration hearing is in essence a court sitting exercising identical jurisdiction – Where s 13E of the Act does not confer judicial power on an arbitrator – Where the production of an arbitral award is not an exercise of a s 79 power – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Whether either parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where mother maintains her belief the father poses a risk to the child – Where mother has perpetrated family violence – Where mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the Court is satisfied that such risk can be ameliorated through long term professional supervision – Where maintaining the child’s relationship with the mother outweighs the identified risks.

PROPERTY – Where initial contributions were in dispute – Where the parties made equal contributions during the relationship – Where notional property not added back but where appropriate to consider under s 75(2)(o) of the Act – Where adjustment under s 75(2) of the Act is warranted – Where father has primary care of the child – Where just and equitable outcome found to be that the parties’ property be divided 55/45 in favour of the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Professional conduct –– Where an adjournment of proceedings was sought at the commencement of the third day of a four day trial due to counsel’s ill health – Where counsel for the mother was briefed in two matters in different courts listed on the same date – Where an adjournment was granted due to unavailability of the mother’s counsel – Where Counsel was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances but failed to clearly do so – Where conduct is referred to the Queensland Legal Services Commission.

FAMILY LAW – REVIEW APPLICATION – decision of registrar not to accord the injunction application urgency – held, registrar erred in not according this case urgency.

FAMILY LAW – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Where the parties signed an agreement for the property and maintenance of the parties – whether the agreement is a financial agreement – where provision made for maintenance of the spouse parties – where there is failure to provide for how the property or financial resources of the parties will be dealt with on the breakdown of the marriage – Orders made that agreement is a financial agreement with respect to spousal maintenance only.