FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Where the husband has commenced proceedings in Australia and the wife has commenced proceedings in Hong Kong – Where the wife has filed an application to stay the proceedings in Australia – Where the husband sought an anti-suit injunction –Where Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – Where the husband’s application for property adjustment is permanently stayed.

DIVORCE – Where the wife seeks a stay of the husband’s application for a Divorce Order as an abuse of process – Where the husband filed an Application for Divorce in Australia some eight months after the wife had filed a Divorce Petition in Hong Kong – Where the Court is satisfied that the husband’s application for a Divorce Order is an abuse of process.

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.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – PROPERTY – Financial agreement – Where judgment was entered against the husband in favour of the applicant in another court – Where the day after judgment the husband and wife entered into a binding financial agreement under which the husband transferred the matrimonial home to the wife – Where the husband subsequently became bankrupt – Where the trustee in bankruptcy and the wife entered two deeds under which the trustee gave up any rights under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“Family Law Act”) – Where the applicant is a creditor of the husband – Where the applicant sought to set aside the binding financial agreement and the two later deeds – Claims under s 90K and s 106B of the Family Law Act – Jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – Claims under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) – Claims under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) – Where the binding financial agreement is liable to be set aside under s 90K of the Family Law Act – Where there is no basis to impugn the trustee’s intention or regard his decisions as commercially unsound – No merit in claims against the later two deeds – Futile to set aside the binding financial agreement where it has been superseded by the two later deeds – Application dismissed.

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 – FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother’s poor mental health remains unaddressed – Where the child to live with the father as primary carer – Being proposed consent orders between father, Independent Children’s Lawyer and mother’s litigation guardian found to be in the child’s best interests.

PROPERTY – Short relationship – Where the father’s substantial initial contributions significantly outweighed the mother’s – Where the father will continue as the child’s primary carer – Adjustment to the mother pursuant to section 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for her future needs – Where the Court was satisfied the proposed orders were just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for property division – Balance sheet items – Loan between de facto parties – Claim the first respondent has a beneficial interest in a property owned by his parents by way of a resulting trust – Where contributions to a mortgage do not give rise to a resulting trust – Claim for damages pursuant to undertakings given by the applicant in support of interlocutory injunctions – No liability for damages established – Whether it is just and equitable for any adjustment of property to be made – Short relationship – Where the applicant made the bulk of the financial contributions – Where the first respondent was the primary homemaker and carer of the child – Where the first respondent will continue to be the child’s primary carer – Where the applicant holds all of the assets – Property adjustment just and equitable – Property pool distorted by the loan between the de facto parties – Order cancelling the liability under the loan – Where the parties will otherwise retain their own property.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – Where an application is made for costs – Where the wife made an early offer to settle – Where the offer was rejected – Where the wife submits the offer would have afforded the husband a superior outcome than he received at trial – Where the wife alleges the husband’s conduct in unnecessarily pursuing issues with no prospect of success increased her costs – Where the husband allegedly died after written submissions were filed – Where no death certificate – Where the Court has jurisdiction to determine the costs application – Where a costs order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Whether subpoenas should be set aside – Objection to subpoena by a non-party – Non-party does not have standing to object to subpoena – Challenging a previous factual assertion found to be a legitimate forensic purpose.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Practice and procedure – Application to vacate five day final hearing on first day of trial – Where father’s legal representatives and ICL advise court father does not appear to have cognitive capacity to give instructions – Where father has cancer – Father on strong medications – Where medical history and treated consistent with possible declining cognitive capacity as noted by Court Child Expert – Final hearing vacated and father’s representatives to seek evidence of cognitive capacity.

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 – Final parenting orders – Where the subject children are aged 13 and 10 – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer propose the children should continue living with the mother and spend limited supervised time with the father – Where the father seeks orders that the children live with him and spend time with the mother – Where there is extensive past involvement by the State child welfare agency with the family – Where the father has made commendable attempts to improve his parenting capacity but failed to accept responsibility for his gross family violence – Where the father lacks insight as to how his cognitive deficit, physical disability, and drug use affect his parenting capacity – Where the mother’s parenting capacity is superior to the father’s – Where the parties live nearly eight hours apart by car – Where the father suffers from spine and neck injuries and complains of the long travel – Where the father is supported by an NDIS worker – Ordered the children live with the mother and she have sole parenting responsibility for them – Ordered the younger child spend an eight hours unsupervised visit with the father every second month – Where no orders are made for the elder child who may spend time and communicate with the father as she wishes.

PROPERTY – Final property orders – Where the only substantial asset between the parties is the former matrimonial home – Where the father received compensation for the injuries he suffered in an accident in 2008 – Where the father used the compensation payment to purchase the former matrimonial home – Where the contributions of the parties are assessed globally to be equal – Where the father conceded an adjustment in the mother’s favour was proper – Where the court orders a 60/40 split in the mother’s favour – Where if the father is unable to raise the funds he must sell the former matrimonial home to pay the mother.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife has a litigation guardian – Where the wife has not signed a Deed of Release – Where the wife or her litigation guardian is required to sign a Deed of Release in settlement of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland – Order made to require the wife to sign the Deed of Release.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – a variety of contested interlocutory applications debated ahead of trial.
DERIVATIVE ACTION APPLICATION – hearing of application deferred to 20 April 2025.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – a variety of contested interlocutory applications debated ahead of trial.

COMPANY LAW – DERIVATIVE ACTION APPLICATION – hearing of application deferred to 17 November 2025.

DISCLOSURE – affidavit of documents – whether second respondent should be ordered to make an affidavit deposing to what happened to documents not disclosed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where applicant is the mother’s eldest child of an earlier relationship – Where subject children are the mother’s youngest children from a subsequent relationship – Where applicant’s and subject children’s mother recently deceased – Where subject children’s father also deceased – Where sibship of applicant, her children and subject children close – Where applicant and subject children indigenous – Where applicant will support and encourage the children’s connection with and positive appreciation of their shared culture – Where paternal family support subject children living with applicant – Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Application for stay of orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) pending appeal hearing – Circumstances in which a stay should be granted – Appeal dismissed – Stay application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation for over five years – Where the wife seeks enforcement of a final order made at trial in terms that were constructed by the parties – Whether specified items were the property of a trust as at 30 June 2024 – Relief sought by the wife achieved in part –,Orders made to facilitate the delivery of items of property.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where following the making of consent orders the ICL sought the parties pay the ICL’s costs in equal shares – Where the parties requested the Court make orders for the filing of written submissions as to costs by all parties – Where the ICL complies with the orders – Where the applicant and respondent fail to comply with the orders they requested the Court make – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of the overarching purpose of family law litigation – Where the conduct of the applicant and respondent in putting the ICL to the cost of preparing written submissions as to costs seeking a very modest amount by way of costs was inconsistent with the overarching purpose – Where the conduct of the applicant and respondent in having put the ICL to the cost of preparing written submissions as to costs and not then bothering to comply with orders they sought the court make is discourteous and contemptuous – Where the Court considers that both parties have the financial capacity to contribute to the costs of the ICL – Orders made that parties pay the ICL’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – undefended Final Hearing – where the father, 76, had a stroke causing severe receptive and expressive aphasia – no capacity to parent, give instructions, or engage in Final Hearing – institutionalised with poor prognosis – where the father’s solicitors have withdrawn due to inability to obtain instructions – where no litigation guardian available – where father subject to unresolved criminal proceedings for alleged sexual abuse of another child – where Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks undefended hearing – where it is appropriate to conduct an undefended final hearing – where the children are to live with the mother and the mother is to have parental responsibility and sole decision making responsibility – no orders concerning time with father – where the father may have grounds to have final parenting orders reconsidered should he regain cognitive capacity.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – Where the father resisted an Autism assessment maintaining that the child’s developmental delays were the mother’s fault – Where there is significant conflict regarding the child’s health needs – Where the father’s focus on blaming the mother hindered professionals being able to give the best advice for the child – Where both parents have capacity to provide for the child’s needs – Where an equal time arrangement with frequent time each week with each parent is in the child’s best interests – Where the mother will have sole decision-making responsibility for health, medical and allied health treatment for the child.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable –Where the wife received significant inheritances before and during the marriage – Where the parties had no joint loans and maintained separate bank accounts – Where each party held assets in their own name – Where the parties lived in property owned by the wife and the husband paid rent – Where it was argued there was no conscious decision to keep separate finances – Where there is no principled reason to adjust the existing property interests – Where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – application to stay parenting orders for change of residence – where the father is entitled to the benefit of judgment – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an application to the Court for the mother to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in their entirety – Circumstances justifying order – Where the mother was not wholly unsuccessful - Where the Court makes an order for the mother to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Magellan list – Child sexual abuse – unacceptable risk – whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – spend time arrangements – no finding as to sexual abuse – where it is nevertheless determined that spending time or communicating with the father against the children’s wishes poses an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children – where no spend time or communication ordered.

PROPERTY – where parties agree as to all substantive assets and liabilities – where only disagreement is to addbacks – where father fails to establish that there should be addbacks as asserted against the mother – where parties agreed contributions should be assessed as equal – where mother has future care of the children – legal fees considered under s75(2)(o) – adjustments favour the mother.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where both parents made applications after the end of trial to re-open evidence – where both parents not represented following the end of trial – reasons reserved to final judgment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where father makes an application to correct his evidence at trial – limited prejudice to the mother – application considered.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where father sought the commission of a further expert report after trial ended – prejudice to the mother – evidence could have been made available for trial – application dismissed with costs.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to re-open – where mother sought to reopen evidence – where mother has resigned from gainful employment – where primary residential asset sold after close of evidence – mother’s application to re-open evidence allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Whether any property still exists or is likely to still exist from which a property settlement order can be made – Where the wife seeks a property settlement order – Where the husband contends that any property either did not exist in the first place or has been lost by him as a result of unscrupulous unidentified third parties – Where the wife seeks an add back of the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the Court is unable to be satisfied that any of the sale proceeds still exist – Where the wife invites the Court to infer that an overseas transfer of substantial funds was legitimate – Where the Court describes the alleged receipt of such a payment as ‘fanciful’ – Discussion of add backs – Where the Court is not persuaded that property exists – Where the wife’s application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where a third-party company seeks its costs in respect of subpoenas set aside by the Court – Where a third-party company seeks its costs arising from the proceedings in respect of those subpoenas – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful with respect to twenty-two subpoenas to which objection was taken by the company.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought the joinder of a third-party company – Where the application was dismissed - Wife to pay the costs of the third-party company fixed in a specific amount.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – RECOVERY ORDER –Where child withheld despite best interest orders – Where child has not been going to school whilst being withheld – Where other issues in the application can be considered at trial in 10 weeks’ time – Where Recovery Order made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim Application – consent orders resolved most issues – where two outstanding applications –where father seeks additional time with – where paternal grandmother seeks additional time with – where current orders allow for time with father and paternal grandmother and also additional time with father and or paternal grandmother with agreement of Department of Communities and Justice and Independent Children’s Lawyer – risk issues – consent orders allow appropriate time with – two applications for additional time with dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where a harmful proceedings order was previously made directed to the husband – Where the husband made an oral application for a stay of previous orders – Where the court invited the husband to make submissions with respect to the question of leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 102QAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Where there is no provision in s 102QAE for an oral application for leave to be made – Where the husband had not complied with the mandatory requirements for an application for leave pursuant to s 102QAE– Where the husband was not given leave to make such an application – Application for stay refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the Respondent has failed to engage correctly with Orders of the Court – Where the Respondent seeks an adjournment of the final hearing – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children had been regularly cared for by the paternal grandparents prior to December 2023 – Where since December 2023 the children have lived with the mother – Where the mother sought a finding that the paternal grandfather has sexually abused the male child – Where the Court is satisfied that the paternal grandfather has not sexually abused the male child.

PARENTING – Where the paternal grandparents and the father assert that the mother has an obsessive-compulsive disorder or in the alternative, that the mother demonstrates traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptomatology – Where there are indicators that the mother’s parenting capacity is impaired by her mental health but not to an extent that warrants the removal of the children from the mother’s primary care.

PARENTING – Where the father’s involvement with the children since August 2021 has been limited – Where the Single Expert expressed an opinion that it is in the best interests of the children that they have access to at least one parent which will promote a sense of stability, reliability and predictability for them.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS –Duty of full and frank disclosure – Whether the duty applies to costs applications – Duty held to apply.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband and wife executed multiple agreements between 2014 and 2020 – Whether any of the agreements are binding financial agreements – Where the first agreement did not express it was made before or during the parties’ marriage – Where the legal advice provided to the wife as to the second agreement was insufficient to meet the necessities of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the third and fourth agreements were made during the parties marriage, but do not state they were made pursuant to s 90C of the Act – Where there is no evidence the parties independently received legal advice in respect of the fifth agreement – Where the agreements do not qualify as financial agreements and are not binding financial agreements under Pt VIIIA of the Act – Where the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s application for substantive financial relief under Pt VIII of the Act – Procedural orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COURTS AND JUDGES – Disqualification – application by the father seeking disqualification of judge on the basis of apprehended bias – where the father has made a s 65DAAA application to reopen the proceedings – where the father asserts that failure to accept aspects of his evidence in the primary judgment demonstrate adverse credit findings – whether prior implied adverse credibility findings would cause a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias – s 65DAAA does not involve any assessment of credibility – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Where a senior judicial registrar dismissed the wife’s application to join a mortgagee bank to the proceedings – Where the bank resisted the application – Where the Supreme Court of NSW granted default judgment to the bank for exclusive possession of the encumbered real property together with a money judgment against the husband for the debt due under the terms of the mortgage – Where the wife and bank reached agreement allowing the wife until March 2026 within which to refinance the mortgage to satisfy the judgment debt – Where the bank is not a necessary party to the proceedings between the spouses – Application for review dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Ex tempore reasons – Where orders were previously made for the sale of two blocks of land – Where post the order for the sale of the property the husband registered a caveat over one of the titles to be sold – Where the caveat lodged by the husband was subsequently removed and injunctions made – Where immediately subsequent to those orders a third party registered a caveat over the same title – Where the third party is a friend of the husband – Where the husband asserts that one of the titles is owned by the SMSF – Where the third party recently became a member and trustee of the SMSF at the husband’s invitation – Where the third party asserts she has an equitable interest in the property as a result of her inclusion in the SMSF – Where the wife seeks an order restraining the third party from lodging any further documents on the titles of the blocks and compelling the third party to withdraw the caveat – Where the Court is satisfied that the husband and third party are taking steps to frustrate the orders for the sale of the blocks of land – Orders made compelling the third party to take such necessary steps to withdraw the caveat.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Whether subpoenas should be set aside – Objection to subpoena by a non-party – Subpoena failed to satisfy relevance – Subpoena found to be oppressive – Subpoena found to be a fishing expedition.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Magellan – Where the respondent originally sought a positive historic finding that the applicant sexually abused the older two children – Where the respondent conceded during the trial that the Court did not have the evidence to make such finding –Where the respondent was unable to express whether she still held the subjective belief that the alleged sexual abuse occurred – Where the maternal grandmother was found to have acted in a calculated manner to obtain disclosures of sexual abuse – Where the Court found that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm.

PARENTING – Restraints – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the applicant sought a restraint on the respondent preventing her from bringing the children into contact with the maternal grandmother for a period of twelve months –Where the respondent opposed the restraint –Where the Court orders that the respondent be restrained from allowing the maternal grandmother to come into contact with the children for a period of twelve months without professional supervision.

PARENTING – Parental responsibility – Where the respondent sought that the children should spend time with the applicant three nights per fortnight – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the applicant contend that the children should spend time with the applicant five nights per fortnight – Where the Court orders that the respondent have sole parental responsibility – Where the Court orders that the children live with the respondent and spend five nights per fortnight with the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there are competing applications for sole parental responsibility and primary residence – Question of whom the children should live with and under what arrangements, including time and supervision – Where there are allegations of family violence, breaches of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders, and police and child protection involvement – Impact of parental mental health and psychiatric diagnoses on capacity to care for children – Disputed medical management of child with chronic illness – Expert evidence as to risk, stability, and parenting capacity – Suspension of time with non-resident parent due to risk concerns – Application of best interests principles under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of protective and welfare factors – Interim orders for sole parental responsibility, primary residence, and no time with non-resident parent pending further order.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Where the mother has disengaged from the proceedings – Where the father, supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer wish the matter to proceed in the mother’s absence – Where it is determined the father does not pose an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the child – Where it is determined that the father poses an unacceptable risk of family violence to the child and to the mother that cannot be ameliorated – Where an order is made that the father will spend no time with the child.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the daughter of the late de facto wife filed a Notice of Intervention by Person Entitled to Intervene – Where the de facto husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking for that Notice to be dismissed – Where the de facto wife’s daughter made an oral application for the adjournment of the hearing of the Application in a Proceeding – Where the de facto husband opposes an adjournment – Where the interests of justice are served by an adjournment – Application in a Proceeding adjourned on condition.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Court determines two interrelated costs applications – Where the Court determines that the conduct of a party warrants a costs order – Where the Court declines to make an indemnity costs order – Where a costs order pursuant to Schedule 3 of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) is not possible due to inaccurate billing – Where the Court discusses the nature, ambit and bounds of the fixed costs power – Where the Court makes an order for fixed costs totalling $150,000.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the child is aged 12 years – where the mother seeks that the child spend no time with the father – where the father seeks unsupervised time with the child progressing to alternate weekends – allegations of family violence – where the 12 year old child told the Independent Children’s Lawyer and both Family Report Writers that she wanted to spend time with her father – where there is a divergence of opinion between the experts – where the Court determined that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father for four hours every second Saturday – where the mother will have sole parental responsibility.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Where the applicant and respondent mother seek leave to commence adoption proceedings of twin 8 year old children (“the children”) – Where the biological father is deceased – Where the respondent mother has been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer – Where section 65K of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is considered – Leave granted – Order made that the applicant and respondent mother are jointly responsible for all long-term decision making concerning the care, welfare and development of the children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking joinder, a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order and injunctive orders – Where the interlocutory hearing was part-heard – Where the de facto husband made an application for an adjournment on the resumption of the hearing on medical and health grounds – Where the de facto husband exhibited a capacity to prepare comprehensive and considered documents for the purposes of the adjournment application – Where the evidence relied upon by the de facto husband does not establish that he cannot engage in the proceeding, nor does it suggest that he could not retain legal representation should he elect to do so – Oral application of the de facto husband for an adjournment refused – Where dispute exists as to the nature and extent of the de facto husband’s interests in discretionary trusts – Consideration of s 90RI of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as to the nature and extent of disclosure obligations in Pt VIIIAB proceedings – Where the de facto husband’s disclosure of relevant financial circumstances is deficient – Where the property and financial resources of the de facto husband are substantially superior to that of the de facto wife – Where the home occupied by the family and then by the de facto wife and the children for over three years is owned by a trust controlled by the de facto husband or the de facto husband and his sister, the second respondent – Where the de facto husband listed the home for sale – Where orders are made for the joinder of additional respondents upon satisfaction of the thresholds identified in r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where injunctive orders are made for the preservation of the home in specie – Where a dollar for dollar litigation funding order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim orders – application for partial property settlement and litigation funding – applications for interim periodic spousal maintenance and backdated spousal maintenance – valuation of real property – where the composition and value of the property pool is in question – order for interim spousal maintenance – dollar-for-dollar order – order for valuation of a real property the beneficial ownership of which remains in dispute – disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – DEED OF RELEASE – Recitals – whether a claim seeking a declaration about the existence of a de facto relationship and a subsequent claim for property settlement are claims that were released by a deed of release containing terms of settlement relating to a costs order made in the Supreme Court of Queensland – doubt and uncertainty relating to clauses in the Deed – reference to the recitals permitted – Leggott v Barrett (1880) 15 Ch. D. 306 applied.

COMMON LAW & EQUITY - Special principles applying to deeds of release including equitable considerations – where (at common law) the general words of the release should be restrained by the particular occasion – where (in equity) the true purpose of the deed of release is to be ascertained from the nature of the instrument and the surrounding circumstances including the state of knowledge of the respective parties concerning the existence, character and extent of the liability in question and the actual intention of the releasor – Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 112 applied. Ms Allen’s claims in this jurisdiction were not released by the deed of release - application in a proceeding filed by Mr Fox on 29 May 2025 dismissed.