FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – High conflict between the parties – Where there have been multiple final orders – Where both parents have limited insight – Where the primary risk to the children is of further psychological harm through exposure to entrenched parental conflict – Consideration of how the parental conflict and the children’s exposure to it can be minimised – Consideration of weight to be given to the children’s views given their ages.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEEDURE – Parenting – Where the Court is asked to determine both an interim application and a final parenting application on the same evidence – Where the usual authorities regarding factual findings in interim hearings are inapplicable – Where the Court views that it is open to determine issues on varying bases – Where the Court lists the matter for further mention – Where the Court lists the matter for further final hearing.

PARENTING – Final Orders – Relocation – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one parent should internationally relocate with the children – Where the parent seeking international relocation has a history of fleeing the jurisdiction in contravention of orders of this Court – Where the parent seeking relocation has limited family support in Australia – Where the Court was placed on notice that the parent seeking relocation may relocate unilaterally irrespective of the orders of this Court – Where the parent seeking relocation would otherwise be awarded ‘live with’ time with the children – Where the Court restrains the parent from internationally relocating with the children –Where the Court makes contingent orders for the parent’s unilateral relocation should it eventuate.

PARENTING – Interim Orders – Where the Court is asked to determine live with, holiday and special occasion time – Where the Court is asked to determine sole decision making for major long-term decisions –Where the Court is asked to determine what restraints should be placed on the parents – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one, or both, parents should attend therapy and enrol in parenting courses – Where the Court is faced with ‘least worse’ parenting circumstances – Where the Court determines that the children should live with the mother – Where the Court determines that the father should spend time with the children in a graduating regime culminating in block time of five nights per fortnight – Where the Court determines that equal holiday time should be shared between the parents – Where the Court determines that varying special occasion time is warranted – Where the Court determines that varying incidental restraints should be placed on both parents – Where the Court examines numerous restraints sought to be imposed that are out of power or without foundation – Where the Court determines that both parents should attend, or commence, individual therapy – Where the Court structures parenting orders so that the parents attendance at therapy is a pre-requisite to their exposure to the children – Where the Court expresses concern for both parents capacity – Where the Court determines that some benefit may arise from orders requiring the parents to attend further coursework education.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one, or both, of the parents present an unacceptable risk to the children – Where allegations of physical violence are made – Where allegations of child sexual assault are made – Where allegations of grooming are made – Where allegations of mental instability are made – Where the Court cannot affirm that either parent promotes the safety of the children – Where the Court must choose the ‘least worse’ option – Where the Court makes findings of family violence – Where no findings of child sexual assault or grooming are made – Where the Court determines that no unacceptable risk, for either parent, exists – Where the Court makes orders minimising physical contact between the parents.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the only asset of significance was sold by the wife and second respondent during proceedings – Where the sales proceeds used to pay the wife's legal debt is notionally added back –Where 80 per cent legal interest of property is found to be property of the parties – Modest property pool – Where the Court is satisfised the wife and second respondent have retained the sales proceeds – Non-disclosure of financial position – Dispute as to length of relationship – Where the Court finds long marriage of 17 years – Where wife made greater initial contributions – Where the wife has the primary care of the children – Further 5 per cent adjustment in favour of wife – Where relief is sought pursuant to s 90AE – Consideration of injunctive orders and s 90AF – Where second respondent directed to make payment – Where just and equitable to effect 65/35 division in favour of wife.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – competing applications for live with orders and sole parental responsibility – serious allegations of family violence – father denies allegations – whether audio recording (and transcript thereof) can be admitted into evidence - evidence supports mother’s allegations of family violence – where the father has an inability to understand the impact of his behaviours - whether a moratorium period of three months should be ordered.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to Estonia – Where the father alleges wrongful retention – Where the mother disputes the child’s habitual residence – Jurisdictional facts established – Regulatory exceptions to return are raised by the mother – Where the mother argued the father acquiesced to the child being retained in Australia – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation is established – Where the mother is the child’s primary carer – Discretion to return not exercised – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT– LITIGATION FUNDING – INJUNCTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks orders for the sale of a real property owned by the husband and for the sale proceeds of that property to be applied to pay outstanding arrears of periodic spouse maintenance, an outstanding costs order, generate funds for a litigation funding order to be made in her favour, and the preservation of a real property held by her corporation – Where the husband opposes the relief sought by the wife – Where the husband conceded the value of spouse maintenance arrears and costs order – Where the wife has significant real property interests available – Where the wife did not adduce evidence as to any incapacity to prevent raising funds against her real properties to meet the liabilities of her corporation – Where the wife failed to establish that she has an arguable case to justify injunctive relief – Where the wife failed to establish a need to enliven an exercise of power pursuant to s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for litigation funding – Where the wife did not establish an absence of capacity to meet her own legal costs – Where the proceedings have been plagued with assertions as to significant disclosure failures – Declarations made as to primary monetary obligations payable by the husband – Husband permitted time to satisfy his obligations to pay monies to the wife – Orders made for the wife to be appointed trustee for the sale of real property and distribution of sale proceeds in the event of the husband’s failure to pay the sums declared – Procedural orders made for any application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Financial agreement – Where the parties have entered into a financial agreement pursuant to s 90C of the Act – application to set aside agreement on the basis that it was impracticable – agreement not impracticable – Property – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where the family wealth was accumulated equally – Where the parties’ contributions were largely equivalent between the commencement of the relationship and separation – Where the applicant’s contributions to the family business and the care and welfare of the children exceed those of the respondent since separation – Contribution entitlement assessed as 67/33 – adjustment to the applicant to take account of future factors – orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where mother alleges family violence – Where mother alleges father is unable to regulate his behaviour sufficiently to protect child from emotional harm – Where mother seeks no time and no communication between father and child.

PROPERTY – Significant financial contribution made by husband at commencement of relationship – Substantial parenting contributions made by mother – Family violence – Where wife is higher income earner – Where wife is carer for young child – Where husband’s compliance with disclosure obligations was inadequate.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Defended hearing – Where it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ property interests – Where the husband failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure – Where the financial circumstances of the husband’s corporations cannot be independently verified – Where the husband’s personal income is not independently verified – Where the husband was the primary breadwinner – Where the wife was the primary carer of the children and homemaker – Where the wife has continued to provide primary care for the children since separation – Where the wife has borne the primary financial responsibility for the children since separation – Where no nexus exists between the wife’s admitted assault on the husband and his ability to make contributions – Where the husband perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence – Where contributions assessed at 57.5/42.5 with a 20 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife – Orders made – Wife to retain the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Superannuation splitting order made from the husband’s super.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – REVIEW APPLICATION – Where the applicant sought a review of interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for a change in the child’s residency – Where the applicant’s mental health was a significant issue in dispute – Where the application for review was dismissed – Where the applicant was granted leave to file another application in a proceeding seeking new interim parenting orders upon the receipt of a single expert report addressing their mental health.

FAMILY LAW – Airport Watchlist – Where parallel family proceedings are on foot in Australia and the USA – Where orders made in the USA proceedings for return of the child – Where the child is presently retained on the Airport Watchlist in Australia – Whether to remove the child’s name from the Watchlist – Whether comity is a significant factor – Request issued for removal of the child’s name.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Overseas travel – Where the mother has insufficient ties to Australia to assure the Court of the return of the child – Where the mother does not have the means to provide a sum sufficient to ensure the return of the children – Application dismissed.

PARENTING – Appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – PROCEDURE – where the second and third respondents seek to set aside orders joining them to the proceedings on the basis that they were never served with the application for joinder – where the affidavits of service relied on by the applicant were incorrect – where the process server asserted that his affidavits were made by someone else and he did not check the validity of his depositions – Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks a combination of party/party and indemnity costs for different stages of the proceedings – Where it is found that the husband’s conduct did cause the proceedings to be unduly prolonged and unduly expensive – Where the wife made offers to settle – Where the terms of the offers to settle represented a better outcome for the husband than the final orders – Costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – Where the second and fourth respondents seek review of orders made joining them and the third respondent to the proceedings – Where they are necessary parties to the proceedings – Application for Review dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Adjournment of trial listed for seven days – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was double listed before another Judge of this Court in a five day trial – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Case Outline included that he would proffer his position following the hearing of the evidence – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer did not intend to be personally present during the course of the trial and had instructed an agent to appear on his behalf – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer provided a 1800 page tender bundle to the parties on the Saturday evening before the trial commenced – Where counsel for the Respondent, as a result of the late provision of the tender bundle, was not in a position to commence the trial for at least two days – Where it was agreed the trial would not finish in the remaining five days – Where the proceedings, which were listed in September 2025, are adjourned as a result of conduct of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where both parties have instructed experienced family lawyers and experienced counsel – Where neither party sought to be heard – Where the Court does not intend for the matter to have any prospect of a repetition of the entirely preventable set of circumstances which have resulted in the adjournment of the trial – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Rules of evidence – Where the admission of parts of a report prepared by a single expert are contested – Whether the Opinion Rule should be applied – Order made applying the Opinion Rule under s 102NL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory application – Final property settlement orders made in August 2025 – Where the respondent is personally indebted to two organisations for legal fees – Where the proceeds of sale (“the proceeds”) of one property is held on trust pending resolution of the dispute over distribution of the proceeds – Where the organisations refuse to withdraw caveats over a second property until the debts are satisfied – Where the applicant seeks an order compelling the respondent to pay the organisations from her share of the sale proceeds – Where the final orders require the respondent to bear her own debts – Where the respondent’s share of the proceeds is sufficient to satisfy her legal debts – Orders made directing payment from the proceeds to discharge the respondent’s debts – Order made for the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs on a party/party basis in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Final child support departure orders and costs orders – Where the parties have concurrent parenting proceedings – Where final orders required the Father pay 100 per cent of the children’s extra-curricular activities – Where no evidence the Father agreed in writing to the children participating in one of the extra-curricular activities – Where the Father deposed to having no funds from which to meet his obligations – Risk of bankruptcy – Injunction pursuant to s 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether it is just and convenient for the Court to make an injunction restraining the Father from overseas travel in aid of enforcing the financial orders – Declaration made pursuant to r 11.07(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Application for injunction dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where the children have lived with the Mother and spent daytime only with the Father since separation –Where the youngest child was hospitalised after consuming psilocybin while in the Father’s care – Where the children have not spent regular time with the Father since then – Where the Father was self-represented despite an order having been made pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Single Expert evidence was not updated and was untested – Where it is uncontested that the Father has at times engaged in cocaine use and excessive alcohol consumption – Where the Father has previously undergone testing for illicit drug and alcohol use but ceased undertaking such tests – Where the Mother has good parenting capacity – Where the Father has not prioritised the children’s needs over his own – Where the Father has failed to act in a child-focused way – Where the parents have no co-parenting relationship – Where orders made for the children to live with the Mother – Where the children’s time with the Father to recommence after he provides to the Mother a clear hair follicle test for illicit substances and for alcohol not in excess of “moderate consumption” – Where the Father’s time with the children to increase upon his provision to the Mother of four consecutive clear hair follicle tests – Where orders made providing for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term decisions with an obligation to consult the Father, consider his views and inform him of the decision reached – Where certain restraints made against the Father including in relation to the consumption of illicit substances and alcohol – Where certain injunctions made against both parents including with respect to non-denigration – Where orders made for international travel – Where the Mother is entitled to obtain passports for the children without the consent of the Father and to hold the children’s passports when they are not travelling – Where orders made for the parents to pay equally the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY OF MARRIAGE – Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment – Whether the respondent was already married at the time of his marriage to the applicant – Where the respondent held a genuine though mistaken belief that he was legally divorced from his first wife – Where the respondent filed a submitting notice – Where the applicant and respondent intend to continue their relationship – Where there is a child of the relationship – Where the applicant seeks to regularise her status.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conflict of interest – Where the legal practitioner acts for both applicant and respondent – Where a submitting notice is filed on behalf of the respondent – Where an affidavit by the respondent is filed by the applicant – Where the legal practitioner caused the respondent to admit to a prima facie offence against or arising under an Australian law – Where the Court has discretion to refer the legal practitioner to the Legal Services Commissioner – Where the legal practitioner is not referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

EVIDENCE – Where the respondent admits to bigamy in affidavit – Where the respondent has not applied for a certificate pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether a s 128 Certificate may apply retrospectively – Consideration of authorities - Where the Court finds in obiter dicta that a s 128 Certificate is unlikely to be able to apply retrospectively.

FAMILY LAW – Children – Interim hearing – mitigation of risks – child to live with the mother – child to spend time with the father on alternate weekends.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where wife seeks orders enjoining third parties from terminating an informal lease arrangement with respect to farming property held by a family trust – Where third parties seek ejectment of spouse parties and entity controlled by spouse parties from farming property – Where wife asserts that the entirety of the farming property should form part of the assets to be divided between spouse parties pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where wife’s ultimate claim against the third parties is for a remedial constructive trust founded on proprietary estoppel.

INJUNCTIONS – Where husband seeks orders restraining wife from attending at farm property and removing her from operational control of farming enterprise.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the parties had a 20-year relationship – Where the wife has in interest in two properties in Country B – Where the wife argued that the Country B properties represented a “financial resource” as opposed to “property” – Where the Court finds that the Country B properties are amenable to an order for adjustment – Where the Court finds that the ordinary principles applicable under s 79 of the Act apply.

PROPERTY - Where the parties were the beneficiary of rent-free accommodation as a consequence of the generosity of the maternal family during the relationship – Where the Court finds that such generosity represents a significant contribution on behalf of the wife.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where no application made pursuant to s 7 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1991 (Cth) – Where the husband had no evidence to meet s 102C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or rr 15.16 and 15.17 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – LIQUIDATOR – Where the wife sought to discharge orders appointing receivers to a group of companies – Where the wife sought the appointment of liquidators and the consequent winding up of the companies – Where the husband opposed the application citing issues of costs – Where the third respondent proposed that the current receiver be appointed the liquidator – Where potential issues as to conflict of interest arise if the current receiver is appointed liquidator – Orders made terminating the appointment of receiver, the winding up of the companies, and the appointment of a liquidator.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of proceedings pending outcome of an appeal – where matter is listed for continuation of part-heard final hearing today – application dismissed and stay denied.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Limited costs order – where a second respondent was joined to the proceedings – caveats lodged by second respondent on properties held in the wife’s sole name – caveats lapsed or removed – where the wife claimed damages against the second respondent – where the wife seeks indemnity costs against the second respondent – where the second respondent seeks party costs against the wife – where the wife is to pay the second respondent’s costs of responding to the wife’s claim for damages.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where father relocated to United States – Where the parents agree as to decision making responsibility and that the children live with the mother – Where the parents substantially agree as to the children’s time with their father – Where the outstanding issues for determination are narrow – Where the matter proceeded by way of submissions only on the question of changeover location and duration and location of Term 2 holidays.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Independent Children’s Lawyer sought contribution – Where mother legally aided – Where father would suffer financial hardship given international travel and contact costs – Costs Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – JURISDICTION – Whether the FCFCOA (Division 1) has jurisdiction to make parenting orders about the children – Where there are completed parenting proceedings overseas including final orders that the father have custody of the children and that they can spend time with the mother – Where each of the children and the parents are Australian citizens –Consideration of ss 69E and 111CD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether, notwithstanding the existence of jurisdiction to make orders with respect to the parenting of the children pursuant to the Act, the exercise of that jurisdiction is constrained – Whether the children are habitually resident in Australia – Where the children have lived in Country B since October 2022 and are settled in Country B – Where the children are not habitually resident in Australia – Where there is no basis upon which this Court may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth Personal Protection measure in relation to the children – Where the alternate relief sought by the father for a permanent stay of the proceeding is otiose and where jurisdiction ought not be exercised as to his other relief as sought – Where the application and response dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child lives with the mother and has spent limited time with the father since separation – Where the father suffers from a substance use disorder – Where the father has remained abstinent since May 2023 – Where the father has meaningfully engaged with support services – Where the mother submits that the father is an unacceptable risk to the child by reason of the risk of him relapsing – Orders made – The father to spend time with the child graduating to four nights each fortnight and half of all school holidays – Where issues arose during the hearing regarding the vaccination beliefs of the parties – Orders made – Mother to have sole decision-making authority.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife failed to comply with an order of the Court – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to amend his Amended Response to Initiating Application – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – attempt to relitigate issue determined by earlier consent order – application by beneficiary of deceased estate of husband to intervene in property proceedings – application for substitution of legal personal representative of deceased husband – discovery sought against non-party – request for leave to issue subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT – Where both parties filed applications seeking the other comply with final orders regarding sale of the matrimonial property – Where both parties assert the other is responsible for the non-compliance with the orders – Where both parties seek alterations to the orders that deal with the sale of such property – Where enacting the husband’s proposed alterations would result in a substantive change to the orders – Sale of the property and avoidance of future litigation in the interest of both parties – Discharge and substitution of the order regarding sale of the property.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – where subpoena objected to on the basis of protected confidence – whether party is a professional service – whether the communications are protected confidences – whether likely harm outweighs desirability of production – application objecting to subpoena dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders proposed with consent of all parties – Proposed orders suitable to ameliorate the risk to the children associated with the father in circumstances where the mother’s parental capacity is compromised – Final orders made in line with the terms provided by the parties.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband filed no response to the wife’s submissions – where the husband has not complied with previous court orders – where the husband’s conduct has delayed court proceedings – where the husband has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – consideration of s 117(2A) factors – costs ordered on an indemnity basis in the wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Sentencing – Respondent pleaded guilty to ten charges of contempt – Seriousness of contempt – Desirability of determining appropriate sentence for each charge – Totality of sentence should not exceed totality of offending – Imprisonment as sentence of last resort – Circumstances warrant imprisonment – Concurrency and cumulation - Part suspension of imprisonment – Good behaviour bond.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – TRIAL SEQUENCE – the applicant submits that the respondent should file his case outline first as the applicant does not understand the case advanced by the respondent – held, case outlines should be filed concurrently.

MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – EXPERT EVIDENCE – the respondent submits that the applicant should be restricted to a single expert witness per issue – held, the applicant should not be so restricted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the child lives and spends time with – Where the parties are unable to agree parenting arrangements for a nine year old child – Where the child currently lives with the respondent and spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks a change of primary care – Where the respondent seeks to reduce the child’s current time with the applicant to three nights per fortnight – Where the child experiences high levels of anxiety – Consideration of best interests – Where a change in primary care is likely to cause the child extreme distress and anxiety – Where the evidence supports a reduction in time from five nights to three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Sole parental responsibility for decision-making to the respondent – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the matter is part-heard – Where the applicant sought to remove the requirement for professionally supervised time – Where the applicant failed to disclose mental health concerns – Where the respondent contended that professionally supervised time is still warranted – Where the applicant proposed the two paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the paternal aunts fail to address or acknowledge the father’s mental health conditions – Where the respondent opposed the paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the applicant sought a video communication order – Where the Court made orders for video communication between the applicant and the child – Where the Court otherwise dismissed the applicant’s interim application.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Injunctive orders – Where the de facto wife seeks injunctive orders to receive notice prior specified dealings with a unit trust and a discretionary trust of which she contends the de facto husband directs the conduct of – Where the appointor and the trustees of those trusts, being the second, fourth, and fifth respondents, oppose the injunctive orders as sought – Where those respondents contend the evidence does not establish that the de facto wife has an arguable case to justify preservation of the status quo and that, in absence of a risk of dealing with assets to frustrate a judgment, an injunction cannot be grounded by application of the “chicken soup” principle – Where the balance of convenience favours the injunctive orders broadly as sought by the wife amended to a defined scope – Notification orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife seeks to join the de facto husband’s mother and other corporate and trust entities in which she contends the husband controls as additional respondents to the proceeding – Where the proposed additional respondents oppose the joinder – Where the de facto wife abandoned or withdrew her contentions of sham – Where she instead contends control – Consideration of whether to refuse an application for joinder if there is no merit – Where the de facto wife’s claim could not be said to be unsuccessful – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceeding – Order for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.

FAMILY LAW – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Allegations of family violence – Mother’s allegations accepted in part – Where the children live with the mother – Where the children have not spent any time with the father for in excess of four years – Consideration of the impact on the mother in the event of any order for time between the children and their father - Children to live with the mother – No orders for time between the children and their father.

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATON – Apprehended bias – Where an application for disqualification is made during contested final parenting proceedings – Whether comments from the bench and/or the conduct of the judicial officer with respect to the use of an interpreter for the father might cause a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Court will decide the competing parenting applications other than on its legal and factual merit – All grounds fail – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where the legal practitioner has failed to comply with orders for the filing of documents – Where the legal practitioner has failed to attend three Court hearings – Where the legal practitioner has breached the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules – Referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - Short marriage – Application by the wife for an adjustment of property interests - Where the marriage lasted two months - Where no compelling reasons exist to make a property adjustment as per s79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Application refused.

PROPERTY – Disputed asset pool – Where applicant wife claims that the husband is the beneficial owner of millions of dollars’ worth of tangible and intangible property in Australia and overseas - Where wife asserts that the husband has not made a full and frank disclosure - Where the court is not satisfied of beneficial ownership - Where even if the Husband did own some or all of the assets, no adjustment would be warranted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Where applicant wife seeks a spouse maintenance claim despite leave being refused under s44(3) and appeal against refusal being dismissed. Application is dismissed.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Practice and Procedure- Where applicant wife asserts that her case requires intervention by the Attorney General - Where applicant therefore seeks adjournment of hearing - Where no evidence or specific claims are made to advance this proposition - Where adjournment application is opposed by all other parties -Adjournment application is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – undefended hearing - best interests – decision-making authority – live with – passport – where the father withheld consent to passport applications for the children – where there were allegations of family violence against the father – where the father disengaged from proceedings – where the matter proceeded in the absence of the father – sole decision-making authority to the mother – the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed between the parents – passports to be issued for the children without the consent of the father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the mother is so high that it requires limitation ad supervision of the children’s time with the mother into the future – Where the father proposes orders in terms similar to the orders promoted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court finds that there is unacceptable risk that the children will suffer psychological harm in the mother’s care – Where the evidence supports the making of an order that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children.

PARENTING – Where the mother amended her application on the first morning of trial - Where the mother promotes unsupervised time between the children and the father – Where the Court finds that the mother will never voluntarily facilitate time between the children and their father.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding in the evening prior to the competing applications being listed for Closing Submissions – Where the application was dismissed – Where the mother filed a further Application in a Proceeding subsequent to Judgment being reserved – Where the mother seeks a variety of orders including to adduce further evidence – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the application – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – CASE MANAGEMENT– Interim Property – Where wife seeks injunctions to operate on savings accounts of the husband – Where husband opposes this on the basis that he needs these savings to pay tax and other financial obligations – Injunction granted for a portion of the funds in Australian bank account – Held that husband is free to use the remainder of his savings to pay creditors on condition that he provide evidence of this to the wife.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – Breach of procedural order– Where the application for contravention was not dealt with at the principal proceedings – Where the application was brought in terrorem – Where the application was found to be trivial and lacking significance – Where the application for contravention is dismissed.