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.
 

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 – PROPERTY – Final orders by consent – Superannuation splitting order – Where the wife sought a superannuation splitting order– Where the Court would not make an order without notice being provided to the Trustee – Where the matter was adjourned for notice to be provided – Where the Trustee sought changes to the proposed orders – Where had the approach of the wife been adopted and a party subsequently withdrew their consent, the Court would have knowledge of the parties’ proposed terms of settlement which would preclude it from continuing to hear the matter – Orders made in accordance with amended Consent Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – FINANCIAL – Where the wife seeks to retain the balance of proceeds from the interim sale of property, superannuation split of the husband’s superannuation fund and spousal maintenance – Where the husband opposes the spousal maintenance – Where the asset pool is modest – Where the wife is subject to an involuntary mental health order – Where the wife’s previous legal representative withdrew as the wife did not have capacity to provide instructions – Where there are a myriad of allegations against the husband – Where the parties have had on-going litigation in India – Asset pool to be divided substantially in favour of the wife – Application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to vary orders to facilitate a change of residence against a background of the release of the single expert report – Where the report has not yet been tested – Where the final hearing is to commence in six weeks’ time – Where the father has not had an opportunity to put on material and procedural fairness requires that he be given that opportunity – Where there are significant concerns about the parenting capacity of each of the parties – The application is adjourned to the final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE –– Where the respondent sought leave to rely on an affidavit filed the day before the contravention hearing – Where the Court refused leave to rely on the affidavit – Where the respondent was granted leave to make an oral application for adjournment – Where the Court granted the oral application for adjournment – Where the applicant sought their costs for the appearance today – Where the Court made an order in favour of the applicant for costs thrown away.

FAMILY LAW – URGENT EX PARTE APPLICATION – application for recovery order made by the father – the mother failing to comply with change of residence order – the father contending that the child is at risk – held, recovery order and airport watch list orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the de facto wife seeks an order that the de facto husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount – Where the de facto husband sought that each party pay their own costs – Consideration of factors within s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is not satisfied there are any circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that the each party pay their own costs– Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Where the father sought orders which would see the child remain living with him in Australia and spending time with the mother whilst she is in Australia – Where the father sought if the mother returned to live in Australia that the child live in an equal time week about arrangement – Where the mother sought that the child move to Country B and live with her and spend time with the father in Country B or in Australia on school holidays, and at any other time he may be in Country B – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought that the child remain living with the father in Australia and spend time with the mother in Australia – Where both parties moved to Australia in 2020 with the child – Where the father is a permanent resident – Where the child is engaged with several therapeutic supports in Australia – Where orders are made for the child to remain living in Australia with the father and to spend time with the mother in Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY APPLICATION – Where the father seeks a stay of final parenting and property orders pending determination of his appeal – Where the father’s application to stay the parenting orders is misconceived – Where, in default of paying the mother a cash sum of $382,800, the father must sell his property to pay the mother – Where the date to pay the mother has passed – Where the order requiring the sale of the father’s property is stayed if the father pays the mother $100,000 within 10 days – Where the mother agrees she does not suffer prejudice by receiving a smaller cash sum while waiting for the father’s appeal to be heard and determined – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Children – some issues resolved by consent – mother to have parental responsibility for the children – mother permitted to relocate with the children to USA.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Urgent Interlocutory Application – Where order was made for the children’s return to Australia following wrongful removal – Where there are no current parenting orders in place in Australia – Order for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband filed an Initiating Application which sought that orders which were made at trial for him to pay $583 a week in spousal maintenance be discharged – Where the wife then filed an Application in a Proceeding which sought that the prosecution of the husband’s Initiating Application be stayed until the husband complied with the spousal maintenance order as well as the costs orders made – Where the husband contended the wife’s application had no real prospect of success – Where the husband, save for one payment of $1,100 in 2022, has made no contribution to the outstanding spousal maintenance – Where the husband has made recent contributions to the costs in the amount of $21,200 – Where the application is in the same cause of action which has been the subject of the previous orders – Where the public policy consideration of compliance with orders outweighs the husband’s right to be heard – Where the Initiating Application is stayed pending compliance with the spousal maintenance and costs orders.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the Court directs a Registrar to forward a copy of the Reasons for Judgment to the Legal Services Commission for its consideration.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer sought that final parenting orders be made by consent in terms contained within a signed Minute of Order provided to the court – Where the orders sought are in the child’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Where child’s biological father has not participated in these proceedings – Leave granted to the First Applicant stepfather to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld).

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Where the Court is asked for leave pursuant to pt XIB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) for disclosure of protected material – Where the Respondents do not oppose an order of this nature – Where the Applicant only seeks relief from the statutory non-disclosure provisions to provide material to the Australian Securities and investments Commission – Where the Applicant identifies conflicting statutory obligations between the Act and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where the Court reviews the nature, scope and extent of the implied common law of non-disclosure undertaking versus the statutory non-disclosure principles – Where the leave requested is technically competent – Where the Court grants the leave sought.

JURISDICTION – Where the Court is asked to review a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and disbursements made under the inherent equitable jurisdiction of the Court – Where the Court determines it holds the inherent power to vary an existing fixed amount for remuneration and disbursements where un-forecast events occurred – Where such inherent power stems from the duty of the Court to make any order necessary to do justice – Where the Court finds that the previous fixed remuneration and disbursements of the liquidator were unreasonable in light of changed circumstances – Where the liquidator proves a prima facie case for reasonableness of further funds sought – Where the liquidator proves, on the face of the document, that disbursements paid were properly incurred and not excessive in quantum – Where the Court orders that the liquidator receive $7,126.90 + GST for remuneration, and $8,032.20 + GST for disbursements from accounts held on trust by the Applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for non-publication order – Whether non-publication order necessary to protect the safety of the subject children – Whether application constitutes abuse of process.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay pending appeal – Where the husband appeals from final property and parenting orders and seeks stay of parenting orders pending appeal.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by mother that child continue to live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility and decision making in respect of major and long-term issues affecting the child and that father spend no time with or communicate with the child in circumstances where the child has not seen his father for nearly three years – Application opposed by the father – Father seeks orders that he initially spend supervised time with the child cumulating in unsupervised alternate weekend time, special events and equal time during school holidays – Serious Allegations of family violence made against the father – Orders that child live with the mother and that she have sole decision making for all major long-term issues in respect of the child – Orders that father’s time with and communication with the child be reserved.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Consideration of relevant principles under s 117 of the Act – where the mother seeks party/party and out of pocket costs – where the father was wholly unsuccessful at first instance – where the father failed to comply with multiple court orders and disclosure obligations – orders made for the father to pay the mother’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COSTS – Where final parenting orders were made – Where the mother filed an Application for a Stay of the final parenting orders – Where the Appeal Division of the Court dismissed the mother’s appeal – Where the husband seeks his costs of and incidental to the Application for a Stay in a fixed sum – Where the father is awarded his costs of and incidental to the Application for a Stay in a fixed amount.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Where the mother removed the children from the Commonwealth of Australia –Where passport applications made by the mother were allegedly fraudulent – Where there is a dispute as to whether any agreement existed for temporary travel – Where even on the mother's evidence she continues to unilaterally retain the children outside the Commonwealth of Australia – Where the Court found it is appropriate for the mother’s application for international relocation to be determined at a final hearing and not at an interim hearing – Where the children’s best interests are served by their immediate return to the Commonwealth of Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where father sought an adjournment of parenting trial so an updated family report could be produced – Where most reasons for seeking an updated report can be the subject of cross-examination – Where family report writer will receive parties’ and witnesses’ trial affidavits – Where children unlikely to be able to engage fully at just five and three years of age – Where case management and court resources can be considered – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs of proceedings that resulted in consent orders, proceedings pursuant to s 79A of the Act, and the costs of the application – Where the wife seeks costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively in such amount as the Court determines on an indemnity basis, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount and alternatively as agreed or assessed – Where the husband sought that each party pay their own costs – Consideration of which costs provision should apply – Where the final hearing had commenced prior to the effective date provided for in the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)– Where s 117 of the Act as previously enacted should apply – Where the Court is satisfied that the circumstances of the husband’s non-disclosure and its consequence warrant an order for indemnity costs.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where father alleges that the mother has fabricated evidence of family violence – Where children have exhibited overtly sexualised behaviours and mother raised the possibility that the father had abused the children - Where the evidence does not establish that the father presents a risk of sexual harm to the children – Mother seeking to relocate to Country J with the children - Expert recommended that the children live with one parent and have identity only time with the other parent due to the high level of parental conflict – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that the children should continue spending time with both parents - Finding that it is in the best interests of the children to maintain a relationship with both parents – Mother’s relocation proposal denied – Orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the children to primarily live with her and spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the Court issued an injunction restraining the wife from continuing to use her former lawyers – where the wife had improperly accessed documents belonging to the husband and subject to legal professional privilege – where information from those documents was utilised by the wife against the husband in the financial proceedings – where other injunctions were also issued by the Court on 15 May 2025 restraining the wife from making any use for the purpose of these proceedings of certain documents that she had improperly accessed – where a dispute arose in relation to the interpretation of some of the orders made on 15 May 2025 – application in a proceeding filed by the husband on 24 June 2025 dismissed.

FUNCTUS OFFICIO – the order of 15 May 2025 was a final order – the Court was functus officio at the time of the making of the final order on 15 May 2025 – the Court does not have the power to revisit that order at the request of one of the parties.

ISSUE ESTOPPEL – where the same question has already been decided – where the order of 15 May 2025 was a final order – where the parties to the earlier judicial decision are the same persons in the current application in which an estoppel has been raised – each of the elements of issue of estoppel are present – Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363 applied, Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 A.C. 853 and Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507 applied.

ABUSE OF PROCESS – where the Court has been asked to adjudicate on more than 3,000 pages of documents in Chambers – where the request is so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of process.

FAMILY LAW – BIAS – Where the Court determined a recusal and stay application as a preliminary matter on the first day of the substantive hearing – Where the Court dismissed the majority of the orders sought – Where the Court declined to determine other orders pending evidence lead in the substantive hearing – Where the Respondent filed a second recusal and stay application on the second day of the substantive hearing in similar terms to the prior application – Where the Court dismissed the second recusal and stay application in whole.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay a sum of $450,000 by way of interim or partial property distribution or litigation funding – Where the pool of assets is not clear - Where an order for litigation funding was made on 27 May 2024 – Whether an interlocutory order should be revisited – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties are unable to agree upon a final division of their property – Where applications for ‘add backs’ were made – Equalisation of superannuation entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the mother seeks an adjournment on the fourth day of trial – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose an adjournment – Consideration of s 69ZN of the Family Law Act – Consideration of Aon Risk Services v ANU – Consideration of the prejudice to the parties and the children of delaying the proceedings – Where adjournment application is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application in a Proceeding – Expert Evidence – Where the respondent seeks to adduce adversarial valuation evidence in respect of two properties – Where the difference in the two valuations does not constitute knowledge of matters known to one expert but not another, nor does it establish a special reason to adduce the evidence – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – modest pool of net assets divided as to 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where proposed minute of final consent orders sent to chambers – Where, contrary to directions, no explanation provided as to best interests – Where proposed change of residence contrary to experts’ recommendations and the child's views in those reports – Where proposed orders placed child in household with older sibling who was accused of indecently dealing with child – Where court not a rubber stamp – Where hearing held – Where father’s material inadequate – Where mother disengaged from proceedings – Where mother afforded procedural fairness – Where some proposed final orders made – Where other orders made differing from those proposed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – the father seeking a change of residence – the mother proposing the children remain living with her – the mother alienating the children from the father – mother’s mental health posing an unacceptable risk to the children – the mother unable to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the children and the father – it is in the best interests of the children for them to have a meaningful relationship with the father – orders made substantially in accordance with the father’s and independent children’s lawyer’s proposals – imposition of a 16 week moratorium period and change of residence order made – spend time arrangements with the mother ordered after conclusion of 16 week moratorium.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the adult daughter of the First Respondent seeks to be removed as a Respondent to these proceedings – Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where wife alleges physical and financial abuse by husband – where wife alleges significant financial non-disclosure by husband – where wife did not fully submit to cross-examination – whether the parties will meet significant future expenses for their children – whether the wife's future capacity to work is reduced – whether allowance should be made for capital gains tax – orders made for property split of 55-45 in husband's favour – orders made for equalisation of superannuation.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife made an enforcement application seeking payment by the husband of $330,000 pursuant to final orders made in the absence of the husband on 4 June 2015 – Where the husband remarried – Where the husband and his new wife are alleged to now be separated – Where the husband’s new wife seeks orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the husband – Where the asset pool between the husband and his new wife is modest – Where the husband and his new wife seek that the final orders of 4 June 2015 be set aside – Orders made staying the relevant order and the enforcement application.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Defended hearing – Final Hearing – Parenting – Where mother alleges long-standing family violence perpetrated by the father towards herself and the children – Where the older children of the marriage have corroborated this account of family violence – Where father has a history of substance abuse – Where the father's mental health is a relevant issue – Where the younger children view the father positively – Where these views are treated cautiously – Order made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for all children – Order for father to have conditional time with the youngest children – Property – Disputed property pool – Where creditors seek payment from the matrimonial asset pool – Where asset pool is insufficient to satisfy all claims – Where various claims for security are made over the former matrimonial home – Where various instruments purporting to create security were created after the fact – Where only one remaining creditor had a secured interest over the former matrimonial home – Where wife's contributions to the marriage were significantly greater than the husband's – Where the wife has significant and continuing parenting obligations – Order made for the balance of the proceeds of sale for the former matrimonial home to be split between the wife and the fourth respondent – Order made for any other property to be retained by the husband and wife in their own names – Claims of all other (unsecured) creditors dismissed.

CONSUMER LAW – Where a creditor (the sixth respondent) seeks, as an alternative relief, damages pursuant to Australian Consumer Law – Finding made that the husband engaged in "Misleading or deceptive conduct" – Order made for damages to be paid to the sixth respondent in relation to the funds he personally invested with the husband.

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

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where final hearing has commenced – Where the wife made extensive allegations of family violence in her trial affidavit but failed to mention some allegations in earlier affidavits – Where the wife gave oral evidence of advice not to pursue family violence allegations by prior solicitors – Where the husband called for documents and the Court issued subpoenas for communications between the wife and her solicitors – Where the Court is satisfied the documents have apparent relevance – Where the Court is satisfied the wife's oral evidence constituted an implied waiver of legal professional privilege – Orders made for the wife to produce documents to the Court.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the final hearing proceeded undefended – Where final orders were made by consent of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the mother is the primary carer of two of the parties’ three children – Where the father travelled to India with the parties’ eldest child without the knowledge or consent of the mother – Where there is family violence as perpetrated by the father against the mother – Mother to have sole responsibility for decision-making relating to long-term issues in respect of the two children of which she is the primary carer and who shall continue to live with her – Airport Watch List order made naming all three of the parties’ children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harman undertaking – Where the wife sought to be released from the Harman undertaking in respect of documents produced on subpoena – Where the wife seeks to use the documents in Supreme Court of NSW proceedings – Where the husband did not oppose the orders sought by the wife – Where the Court still needs to be satisfied that leave should be granted – Where the Court is satisfied that special circumstances exist – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM - Where the children have resided with the mother since March 2023 and spent no time with the father – Where the elder child requested of her father to be picked up from school in July 2025 and has resided with the father since – Where the mother filed an urgent interim application for recovery of the child – Recovery order made – No orders for the child to spend time with the father pending the trial in November 2025.

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS – Where the husband made several applications in a contravention proceeding – Where a harmful proceedings order was made – Where the husband made an application for recusal – Where the husband sought a s 102NA order for interlocutory hearings – Where the husband sought to restrain the wife’s solicitors and barrister from acting – Where the husband sought the issue of subpoenas – Where the husband sought a stay of earlier orders – Applications of the husband dismissed.

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 – Application by the mother to vacate trial dates – Where the application is opposed by the father and consented to by the ICL – Where trial directions for the filing of material have not been the subject of compliance – Where the mother contends she is unable to prepare her matter due to extenuating circumstances – Where both parties have had adequate opportunity to present evidence – Where the availability of a single expert for trial is contested – Case management principles considered – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife seeks to tender a document that purports to be an agreement finalising the relationship between the parties – Where the privilege attaching to the document under s 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is removed by the application of s 131(2)(b) – Where the Court is satisfied the document is not irrelevant – Document received into evidence.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Application by the wife for leave to rely upon four additional affidavits at final hearing – Where the wife raises her application on day three of final hearing – Where the Court is not satisfied a proper basis has been demonstrated for leave to be granted – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Objection by the husband to paragraph in wife’s trial affidavit – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence is relevant pursuant to s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“Evidence Act”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence is admissible as tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act – Objection upheld.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Father’s application to adjourn upcoming final hearing – Where the adjournment application is opposed by the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the bests of the children are best served by finality to the proceedings – Where there remains time prior to the final hearing to address the extant financial matters – Application dismissed – Section 102NA orders made.