FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the mother seeks injunctions restraining the father, the father’s current partner and a third party from communicating to the public an account of completed parenting proceedings – Where the father and the father’s partner participated in a podcast made by the third party – Where it is not in the child’s best interests for the information contained in the podcast to be disseminated to the public – Where the injunctions sought will supplement compliance with s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) to mitigate the established risk of continuing psychological and emotional harm to the child – Mandatory injunctions made pursuant to s 67ZC of the Act or in the alternative where special circumstances are established to supplement compliance with s 114Q of the Act, for the father, the father’s partner and the third party to remove all material published online communicating to the public an account of the parenting proceedings – Request for the Marshal of this Court and the Australian Federal Police to investigate any breach of s 114Q of the Act – Orders as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children live with the Mother – Where one child is yet to meet the Father and one child is spending professionally supervised time with the Father – Where both parents make allegations of family violence against the other – Where the recommendations of the Panel Family Consultant are contingent upon the Court’s findings in relation to family violence on a particular occasion when the Mother was pregnant with the youngest child – Where there are significant factual disputes between the parents as to what occurred on that occasion – Where the fact of inconsistencies in the Mother’s recollection does not mean that she has lied – Where certain findings are made about the use of family violence – Where the Mother seeks that the children spend no time and have no communication with the Father – Where the Father poses a low risk to the children and the Mother – Where the Mother’s emotional and psychological safety will be protected by certain conditions – Where the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) propose a sensible, child-focused and gradual progression for the Father’s time with the children – Where orders made broadly in the terms sought by the Father and the ICL – Where orders made for the children’s surnames to be changed – Where orders made restraining the Mother from leaving the children in the unsupervised care of her older son or the maternal grandmother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International Relocation – Where the respondent sought permission to relocate with the child to Japan – Where the applicant sought that the child remain in the Commonwealth of Australia – Where the respondent contends that relocation would be in her own, and the child’s best interests – Where the applicant contends that his relationship with the child would be damaged upon any relocation – Where the Court finds that applicant’s relationship with the child can continue after relocation – Where the Court finds that the child’s and respondent’s welfare would benefit from relocation – Where the Court makes orders allowing international relocation.

PROCEDURE – International enforcement – Where the Court is asked to determine if orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) are registerable, recognisable, or otherwise enforceable in Japan – Where the Court determines that Article 118 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure allows for the recognition of orders under the Act.

PARENTING – Family Violence – Where the respondent asserted that she was subject to physical and verbal assault by the applicant– Where the respondent asserted that she was subject to stalking by the applicant – Where the applicant suggested he was subject to physical and verbal assault by the respondent– Where the applicant denied that he engaged in stalking behaviours – Where both parties claim that the child was exposed to family violence – Where the Court finds that the applicant perpetrated family violence against the respondent on one occasion – No finding that the applicant engaged in stalking behaviour – Where the Court finds that the child was exposed to family violence.

PARENTING – Substantive Arrangements – Where the respondent is permitted to internationally relocate with the child – Where the Court makes orders that the child live with the respondent – Where the applicant can spend time with the child in Japan on a gradually increasing regime – Where the Court orders time between the child and applicant during the school term and during school holidays – Where the Court makes orders for significant time between the applicant and child via video communication where the applicant is not in Japan – Where the Court makes incidental orders for the child to attend counselling – Where the Court makes protective restraints against both parties.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABUSE – Sexual abuse – Whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm– Where the children have been engaged in extensive counselling for sexual abuse and believe they are victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by their father – where the mother’s belief that the children were sexually abused is genuine – where the court is not satisfied that the father presents an unacceptable risk to the children.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Parental responsibility – Where the father has relocated interstate – Where the parties have no capacity to liaise – Where no party proposed any safe or practically realistic orders for the children’s reintroduction to their father.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the mother wishes to return to live permanently with the child in Country E – Where relocation is opposed by the father – Where the mother’s poor attitude to the father is not properly based and causes the court grave concern as to her ability to protect and foster the child’s relationship with the father – Orders made restraining the parents from relocating the child’s place of residence – Orders made providing for the father to spend time with the child in a graduating regime, culminating in a week about arrangement – Orders made for the parents to have equal responsibility for making major long-term decisions for the child.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where father seeks time with five-year-old child – Where father has no pre-existing relationship with child – Where mother alleges serious family violence including coercive control, intimidation and threats – Where absence of physical violence does not mean absence of risk – Where father suffers from an acquired brain injury and several mental health disorders – Where there is evidence of illicit substance abuse by the father – Where mother alleges father is dangerous and impulsive.  

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother makes an application for costs following the father filing a Notice of Discontinuance, ending his pursuit for final parenting orders – Where final parenting orders are thereafter made providing for the child to live with the mother and spend no time and have no communication with the father – Where the father filed the Notice of Discontinuance shortly after the release of the Single Expert Report – Orders made for each party to bear their own costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children live with the father – Where the mother abducted one of the children during a supervised visit – Where the mother received a conviction and has only had supervised phone contact with one of the children since then – Where the father seeks to relocate – Where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) seek orders for the mother to spend supervised time with the children on four occasions each year – Where the mother did not participate at the final hearing – Orders made in accordance with the proposals of the father and the ICL. 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where each of the husband, the wife and the wife’s trustee in bankruptcy applied for injunctive orders to preserve property – Where the scope of the dispute between the parties significantly narrowed over the course of the hearing – Where the injunctive orders sought by the husband constrained and directed the trustee in bankruptcy’s conduct in discharge of his obligations – Where the husband has not established a danger or risk of dissipation such that any final judgment in his favour would be frustrated or imperilled – Where the husband has not established the balance of convenience favouring the making of orders as sought – No matters of principle – Orders made in terms as agreed – Balance of applications for orders dismissed save as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application – Where both parties requested that the principal application be listed for final hearing – Where trial directions were made nearly seven months prior to the trial dates – Where the parties received orders to engage and instruct valuers on four different occasions over the span of 18 months – Where valuers were not instructed in a timely way to permit preparation for trial – Where no adequate explanation for that failure was given – Where the failure to prepare was likely because of the conduct of the parties’ solicitors, not the parties themselves – Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where final parenting orders were made by consent which provide for the wife to relocate to New Zealand and for the children to live with her – Where the parties seek a division of property under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the wife seeks spousal maintenance – Where the Court assesses contributions as equal and declines to make an adjustment for current and future circumstances – Application for spousal maintenance dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Procedural – Appointment of a Litigation Guardian.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where both the applicant and the respondent seek costs of the proceedings – Where the matter was settled by consent – Where further supplementary applications were filed seeking leave to rely on late filed material – Where the Court grants leave to rely on the material despite prior direction impliedly granting leave as to that fact – Where the application for leave is otherwise dismissed – Where the parties’ material is prolix, argumentative and poorly pled – Where the Court contemplates striking out both parties application for procedural deficiencies – Where the Court analyses the factors identified in s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the factors do not warrant an order for costs – Where the Court upholds the presumption that both parties pay their own costs as to the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there is a long history of court proceedings – Where parties reach a final agreement at trial after evidence for live with and sole decision making authority to the mother – Orders made for no time with the father – Father at liberty to send letters, gifts and cards to the mother for the child – s 102QAC harmful proceedings order made against the father – Remaining issue in dispute as to injunctions – s 68B and s 68C restraints against the father for the personal protection of the mother and child in aid of parenting orders made because of mother’s mental health vulnerabilities and father’s conduct and lack of insight.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto – 4 year relationship – Significant contributions by the respondent – 2.5 per cent adjustment to the respondent in relation to family violence – No adjustment for future needs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties have reached agreement on the majority of issues – Where discrete issues remain in dispute – Where the Court considered the child’s right to enjoy their culture pursuant to the s 60CC(3) considerations – Where the Court made orders providing for the child to spend time with a parent on days which celebrate Māori and Aboriginal culture – Where the Court found that a party’s history of acting protectively operated as a safeguard against future risk – Where the child has been primarily cared for by a grandparent since birth – Where serious allegations of drug misuse are made against a parent – Where the parties have taken steps towards rehabilitation and improving parenting capacity – Where the Court declined to make orders restraining a parent from residing at a particular residence.

FAMILY LAW – ex tempore reasons in a contested interlocutory application – where the husband unilaterally let his own premises to himself or to one of his companies in breach of consent orders – no evidence to substantiate how in fact and in law the husband could occupy the premises as both tenant and landlord – husband ordered to vacate the premises and comply with existing consent orders.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where interim orders had been made requiring the first respondent to pay a lump sum to the applicant’s solicitors for litigation funding and spousal maintenance to the applicant – Where the first respondent has failed to fully comply with the interim orders – Where the applicant seeks orders for the sale of a real property owned by the first respondent and for the sale proceeds of that property to be applied to pay the litigation funding order – Where the first respondent seeks a further indulgence of 12 weeks within which to comply with the order but does not oppose a sale of the property thereafter – Where the other respondents to the proceedings opposed the sale – Where the respondents failed to comply with procedural orders to file evidence – Where the evidence indicated sale proceeds would generate a surplus – Orders made for the first respondent to pay the outstanding interim costs within 48 hours – Orders made for the sale of the property in the event the first respondent fails to pay the outstanding interim costs within the time specified.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim parenting arrangements – Where there are two children to the marriage – Where the father seeks unsupervised time with one of the children and for family therapy to commence with the other – Orders made for the continuation of supervised time and for the father to undergo psychological treatment.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where the mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, for the child to live with her, for the father’s time to be unsupervised and limited to special occasions– Where the father sought sole decision-making responsibility, for the child to live with him, and for the mother’s time with the child to be supervised indefinitely – Where the parties do not have a good co-parenting relationship and are highly conflictual – Where each of the parties contend the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the event the Court made orders as sought by the other party – Where the relationship between the father and the child is not able to be maintained and supported if the child remains living with the mother.

PARENTING – Family violence – Where the mother alleges the father perpetrated family violence during the relationship – Where the mother alleges the child was exposed to family violence – Where the father denies perpetrating family violence or exposing the child to family violence – Where to accept the mother’s allegation in the face of the father’s denial requires an acceptance of her evidence – Consideration of the absence of any probative cross-examination, the father’s denials, and findings that the mother was an unconvincing and unreliable witness – Where the Court is not satisfied that the mother has discharged the onus of proof.

PARENTING – Enmeshment – Child’s wishes – Where the Court finds that there is a strong enmeshment between the mother’s views and the child’s stated wishes – Where the Court does not attribute significant weight to the child’s wishes.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Defended hearing – Where the children are aged six and seven years – Where it is uncontroversial the children should live with the mother and she should have sole decision-making authority for them – Dispute about the nature and extent of the children’s interaction with the father – Where the children’s time with the father has been supervised since late 2023 – Where the father committed family violence – Where the children were exposed to family violence – Where the father remains a risk of harm to the children and the mother – Where the supervised visits between the children and the father have been positive since August 2025 – Where the children love the father but remain cautious about him – Where the children do not want to see the father without someone else present – Where supervision by a family member or friend is not suitable – Where indefinite supervision is generally undesirable – Where the orders are final but not immutable – Orders made – Children to spend professionally supervised time with the father each alternative Sunday – Children to communicate electronically with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROCESS AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where the Applicant seeks the costs expended in relation to one discrete issue determined in financial proceedings – Where the Applicant seeks that such costs are paid on an indemnity basis – Where s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) considered – Where in the substantive proceedings significant adverse credibility findings were made against the Respondent to the costs application – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful in the substantive proceedings – Where the Respondent being unsuccessful in relation to the discrete issue considered under ss 114UB(3)(c) and 114UB(3)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where offers of settlement made by each party and the terms of such offers considered – Where it is just to make a costs order in favour of the Applicant – Where the Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where both parties seek orders adjusting their property interests – Dispute about composition of the asset pool – Where the husband contends asserted loans from his parents should be included in the pool of assets for division between the parties – Held the purported loan agreement between the husband and his parents was of recent invention – Where the parties were in dispute about the extent of their respective contributions and future needs – Held contributions and future needs roughly equal – Treatment of prior distributions made to the parties under s 78(5) and a monetary adjustment made in favour of the wife – Where both parties sought to retain the former family home the wife had lived since separation – Held wife to retain former family home subject to her capacity to refinance the mortgage encumbering the property – Default order for the husband to receive the property and pay a sum to the wife if she is unable to retain the property – Superannuation equalised in accordance with agreed position of the parties.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks costs on an indemnity basis against the husband – where the final hearing of financial proceedings was listed to commence in October 2025 – where the husband applied for an adjournment at the commencement of trial – where the wife had incurred significant expense in preparation for trial – where the parties were ordered to file submissions with respect to the wife’s application for costs – where the husband did not file written submissions with respect to costs – where there has been a history of non-compliance by the husband – where the husband’s conduct necessitated the adjournment of proceedings – consideration of s 114UB factors – husband ordered to pay wife’s costs thrown away on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether s 102NA protection is mandatory where the Court makes injunctions relating to exclusive occupation – Whether s 102NA protection is mandatory where the court makes injunctions by consent – Whether s 102NA protection is mandatory where the Court makes injunctions which are mutual – Meaning of personal protection – Where parenting proceeding is listed for trial in 10 days – Trial vacated – Held that s 102NA(2) requirements apply to cross-examination in these proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks final orders that the children spend no time with the father – Where the father seeks orders that he spend significant time with the children – Where the father has not seen the children in several years – Where the father presents a risk to the children and it is not in the children’s best interests to spend time with him – Father to send letters and gifts with various conditions.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties sought that final parenting orders be made by consent in terms contained within a signed Minute of Order provided to the court at the re-opened hearing – Where the court is satisfied those final orders sought are in the children’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the principal application is part-heard – Where the applicant filed and served a notice to produce on the respondent – Where the documents subject of the notice to produce are subject to legal professional privilege – Where the applicant asserts that the respondent impliedly waived privilege by acting inconsistent with the maintenance of the confidentiality of the communications – Where most of the contents of the communications were not put in issue and are not open to scrutiny -Where the respondent made partial disclosure of communications between himself and his lawyer to the applicant – Where the respondent waived privilege for the relevant communication.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Non-compliance with trial directions and orders of the court – Oral application by mother for an adjournment to delay the commencement of the trial – Further oral applications by each party for leave to issue subpoenas to expert witnesses on the first day of trial – Oral application by the father to rely upon lay witness affidavits previously filed in the proceedings – Where each party has had ample time to prepare their evidentiary material - Consideration of the overarching purpose – Waste of Court resources and impact on other court users – Where the parties’ respective oral applications were dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO – Existence of de facto relationship – Where the applicant claims the parties were in a de facto relationship for 25 years – Where the respondent seeks a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) that a de facto relationship never existed – Where the respondent claims the parties only had a close personal friendship – Consideration of the nature of the relationship – Consideration of the credit of the witnesses – Where the applicant fails to establish a de facto relationship existed within the meaning of s 4AA of the Act – Declaration made pursuant to s 90RD that a de facto relationship never existed.

DE FACTO – PROPERTY – Where the applicant sought property adjustment under s 90SM – Where the Court was not satisfied of the existence of a de facto relationship – Where the Court’s jurisdiction was not attracted under Pt VIIIAB – Where even if the Court’s jurisdiction was attracted, the Court was not satisfied it would be just and equitable to make any order altering the property of the parties – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child was removed from Australia to the United States of America – Where the father has initiated parenting proceedings in Australia pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the father has also personally instituted proceedings in the USA pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Where the mother claims the father consented to the removal – Where the USA has not ratified or acceded to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co‑operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children – Where the child’s place of habitual residence is disputed – Where both parties seek that documents produced in these proceedings pursuant to ss 67ZBD and 67ZBE and upon subpoena be used in the US proceedings – Where the Court finds that, as required by r 15.26(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), special circumstances exist to permit the use of the documents in the US proceedings – Where the documents may contribute to the achieving of justice in the US proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – SAFETY – Where the Court has previously found that the applicant’s husband engaged in the grooming of a young person – Where the Court previously restrained the applicant from causing the children to come into contact with her husband – Where the applicant seeks to remove this prior restraint – Where the applicant seeks orders to reintegrate her husband into the children’s lives –Where the applicant’s application is opposed by the respondent –Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the applicant’s proposal – Where the Court finds that the applicant’s husband remains an unacceptable risk to the children – Where the Court dismisses the applicant’s application.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – SPEND TIME – Where the Court previously made orders mandating that the respondent spend only supervised time with the children – Where the respondent seeks orders to remove the requirement for professional supervision– Where the respondent seeks orders to extend his time with the children – Where the applicant and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the orders sought by the respondent – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer contends that the respondent’s supervised time with the children ought to be extended by three hours – Where the Court finds that no change to the previous orders are warranted– Where the Court dismisses the respondent’s proposal.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant agreed to pay half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the respondent refused to pay a half share of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs –Where the respondent contends he is unable to afford his share of the cost of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the applicant is silent on this issue – Where the Court does not accept the respondent’s contention – Where the Court orders that the respondent pay half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother applied to adjourn the parenting trial as she was self-represented – Where the four day trial long set down and due to commence in a fortnight – Where a fair trial is a right but legal representation is a privilege – Where there are serious allegations made by each parent – Where any prejudice to a party is secondary to the best interests of the child – Where the mother has long known the father’s case and still has time to prepare – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Travel - Issues narrowed by consent - International travel remains in issue - Where mother seeks an order that would enable her to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia without the father's consent – Finding made that the father previously withheld the children's passports and an identification document of the mother – Where father has been found to have previously withheld his consent for the children to return to Australia – Where there is no evidence of the mother being a flight risk – Where it is in children's best interests to travel overseas and see family – Held that sole decision making responsibility is the only child focused practical order in the circumstances of this case.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for Recusal – where the Application was made after five days of hearing – where the Application was framed in terms of procedural unfairness – where the Application was made on the basis of judicial intervention during cross-examination of the mother by the father’s Counsel – where the Application was made before the cross-examination of the mother by the father’s Counsel had concluded and before the evidence in the trial had been concluded and before final Reasons for Judgment were delivered – where both the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother submitted that the Application for Recusal be dismissed – where the Court concluded that each of the interventions complained of were within the accepted categories as outlined in the authorities – where the Application was not framed on the distinct yet related doctrine of apprehended bias – where the Application for Recusal is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the applicant seeks an Order under section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the first respondent spent one year in prison for a breach of Domestic Violence Order – where section 102NA of the Act mandatorily applies – where the applicant seeks litigation funding – where joint funds of the applicant and first respondent are held on trust –  where the respondent does not seek litigation funding.   

FAMILY LAW – AIRPORT WATCHLIST ORDER – Overseas travel – Where final parenting orders were made 6 months ago – Where orders provided father with sole decision-making for major long-term issues for the child – Where no time between child and mother except as requested by the child – Where mother prohibited from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia – Where father specifically permitted to remove the child from the Commonwealth – Where mother found out father intended to relocate with the child to their homeland and had child’s name placed on the Airport Watchlist – Orders made removing the child’s and father’s names from the Airport Watchlist.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ex-tempore reasons – Application for Review – Where hearing of the parties’ competing applications for final property orders is listed in approximately two months – Where the wife seeks review of orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar requiring the valuation of property for the purposes of final hearing – Where the husband opposes the wife’s Application for Review – Where the property the subject of the disputed valuation order was last valued in June of 2024 – Where it is necessary and appropriate that an updated valuation be conducted prior to trial – Application for Review dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Whether leave to commence adoption proceedings is in the best interests of the child– “prescribed adopting parent” – Leave granted under s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence proceedings.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where a registrar ordered joinder and service upon deceased father as a respondent – where the application is irregularly constituted – where further orders for service did not stipulate who the applicants were to serve – where the order designating the deceased as a respondent was wrong – order set aside.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the respondent did not appear at the final hearing – Where the respondent did not file material in accordance with trial directions – Where final parenting orders were made as consented to by the applicant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the respondent is the biological mother – Where the applicant is the mother and primary carer – Where unacceptable risk – Where limited supervised time between the child and the respondent in child’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where child and mother involved in motor vehicle accident – Where mother and other family members deceased – Where child survives but is in intensive care – Where previous final orders conferred sole parental responsibility on the now deceased mother – Where urgent application brought by the father – Where orders made for parental responsibility for health matters – Where premature to make a live with or broader decision making orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – father presently incarcerated for rape and concurrently for sexual abuse of the mother’s younger sisters when they were children and in her care – father seeks communication from prison – communication opposed by mother and ICL – application for communication refused. Consent orders made regarding children’s time with paternal grandparents.

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.

FAMILY LAW – 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 – PARENTING – Interim proceedings – Rice & Asplund – Where the mother disclosed that her partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse offences – Where the father sought an undertaking that the mother be restrained from bringing the children into contact with her new partner pending the final hearing – Where the parties had previously reached agreement in the terms of a consent order which provided that on a without admissions basis the mother would be restrained from allowing the children to have any contact with her partner – Where notwithstanding the consent order, the father sought a variation of the orders in respect of the children’s time with their mother – Held that no significant change in circumstance had been established and it was not in the children’s best interests to reconsider the parenting orders – Application dismissed.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the father did not appear at the hearing – Where the father made an application by way of email to adjourn the current trial dates, in circumstances where he resides in the United States of America, and in which he submits he is in financial difficulty and is unable to obtain legal representation by way of the scheme pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where, pursuant to a liberty provided by way of previous orders of the Court, the mother seeks for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis as against the father – Application for adjournment dismissed – Application to proceed on an undefended basis dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – TRUSTS – PROPER PURPOSE RULE – Declaration sought – Whether declaration necessary – Where a determination is sought that trusts and/or trust assets are property of the marriage or either of them within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where it is determined that the trusts are not a sham or alter ego of the husband – Where the wife is an excluded beneficiary of the trusts – Where the assets of the trusts do not represent labours or contributions of either party –Where the husband and wife have accumulated significant wealth outside the trusts from which a just and equitable settlement may be achieved – Where it is conceded that the trusts’ assets are a financial resource of the husband for the purposes of s 79 – Where it is decided that the trusts and/or trust assets are not property within the meaning of s 79.