FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant is the child’s former step-father – Where the first respondent is the child’s biological mother – Where the second respondent is the child’s putative biological father and did not participate in the primary proceedings or appellate proceedings – Where the appeal does not raise any question of general principle – Where the appellant pleaded guilty to stalking the first respondent early in their relationship – Where the trial judge found the appellant to have continued to commit family violence during and after the relationship – Where the trial judge found that the appellant posed an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the trial judge found that the passage of time had not lessened the risk – Where the trial judge found that the risk could be mitigated by infrequent supervised time with the child – Where the further amended Notice of Appeal contended a denial of procedural fairness, errors of law and a failure to give reasons – Where the appellant’s Summary of Argument addressed grounds of appeal which were not raised in his further amended Notice of Appeal – Where the appellant was confined to the grounds in his further amended Notice of Appeal – Where there was no merit to any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant challenges an order to pay the costs of an intervener on an indemnity basis in s 79 proceedings – Where none of the prosecuted grounds of appeal have merit – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders – Where the appellant’s factual challenges as to the value of the respondent’s minority interest in a corporation and as to discretionary error have no merit – Where the appellant establishes that the primary judge was in error in not attributing a positive value to the respondent’s interests in a self-managed superannuation fund – Where the primary judge conflated the financial circumstances of differing corporations at differing times relevant to the finding under challenge – Appeal allowed in part – Where the matter is remitted limited to specific issues to obtain an updated valuation of the respondent’s interests in the self-managed superannuation fund and thereafter for a superannuation splitting order pursuant to s 90XT of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Costs certificates for the appeal and limited remitter.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Procedural fairness – Statements by judge that the Court would force 14 year old to resume residence with a parent prior to hearing argument on that issue – Apprehended bias established.

PARENTING – Application to vary final parenting orders – Whether “significant change in circumstances” as required by s 65DAAA – 15 months of no contact with former resident parent a “significant change in circumstances” within the meaning of s 65DAAA.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Harmful proceedings order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 28 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) constitutes an application in a proceeding under the Family Law Act for the purposes of s 102QAC – Where an appeal constitutes an incidental proceeding and is subject to a s 102QAC order – Where leave is required – Where the applicant alleges error in the primary judge’s refusal to restrain the wife’s counsel and solicitors from representing her – Where the wife’s counsel had been representing her in the proceedings for 10 years – Where a solicitor previously employed at the firm representing the applicant is alleged to have commenced employment at the firm representing the wife – Where no proper basis is disclosed for such restraint – Where none of the proposed grounds of appeal have merit – Where the proposed application for leave to appeal falls within the definition of a “vexatious proceeding” for the purposes of s 102QAF(2) – Leave to appeal refused.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the father’s complaint his counsel at trial was so incompetent to have caused a miscarriage of justice is rejected – Where the primary judge found the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and the mother – Where the father’s bare assertion the primary judge erred in the application of legal principle and gave inadequate reasons fails – Where the primary judge did not make any error in making orders that require permanent supervision of the time the child spends with the father – Where the father’s complaint the primary judge failed to consider the child’s views is false – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s legal aid costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the primary judge set aside subpoenas issued by the father seeking records related to the mother’s employment – Where the mother’s work rosters and timesheets could only be rationally relevant to her spare capacity to primarily care for the children – Where the trial of the parenting cause is now complete – Where the proposed appeal in so far as it relates to the parenting cause is futile – Where the trial as to the financial cause is yet to commence – Where the primary judge perhaps fell into legal error by dismissing the subpoenas in the financial cause but the father cannot demonstrate how he suffers substantial injustice by the decision – Where the father’s complaint as to the quantum of a costs order is false – Leave to appeal refused – Application to adduce further evidence dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Asset preservation injunction – The husband alleged the magistrate provided inadequate reasons for granting the wife the injunctive relief against the husband – The Court emphasised that an applicant for injunctive relief must establish that there is a real risk of assets being disposed of and that, as a result of that risk, there is a real ground for believing that the applicant will be prejudiced in the remedy they are seeking – The magistrate failed to outline principles regarding issuing injunctive orders – Leave to appeal granted as the appellant would suffer substantial injustice if leave were not granted, as they would face hardship due to the effect of the interim injunctions – Appeal ground allowed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Cross appellant company appealed anti-suit injunction – When assessing whether to grant the anti-suit injunction, the magistrate took a ‘holistic approach’ to the parties’ circumstances – Court held that the appropriate test in determining whether to make an anti-suit injunction order is whether the court “was a clearly inappropriate forum” not an assessment of the more convenient forum. – Leave to appeal granted as depriving an entity of its legal rights without proper justification amounts to substantial injustice – Appeal ground allowed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Spousal maintenance – Where the husband contended the magistrate failed to take into account material considerations – Where the husband argued the magistrate should have taken into account the wife’s access to funds post-separation – The Court held that the fact that a party has access to a lump sum amount of the collective marital property is not, in itself, a disentitling factor to an order of spousal maintenance if the expenditure has been or will be accounted for – The lump sum was no longer available to the wife to meet her weekly needs – The Court emphasised that there was no requirement for the wife to extend her credit card debt to establish she was unable to adequately support herself – The magistrate’s failure to refer to relatively insignificant amounts of funds drawn on by the wife was held not to have impacted upon the magistrate’s assessment of the wife’s capacity to adequately support herself – Appeal ground dismissed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Spousal maintenance – Where the husband contended that the magistrate failed to recognise that part of his declared income was a non-cash fringe benefit and should not have been included in his total income – The magistrate was not obliged to break down husband’s income into cash and non-cash benefits, particularly where they were not requested to do so by any argument presented by the husband – Where the husband contended the magistrate erred by failing to assess the weekly quantum of payments ordered by the magistrate and their impact on surplus income – Court held the magistrate adequately considered the payments – Appeal ground dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the self-represented appellant requests a further adjournment for six months for medical reasons and lack of legal representation – Where the medical reports relied upon are inconsistent with the appellant’s conduct in preparing and filing documents in the appeal – Where the appellant did not adduce evidence as to incapacity to re-engage legal representation – Where adjournment of the appeal will cause prejudice to the respondent – Adjournment application refused – Where the appellant did not further participate in the appeal hearing and the appeal was thereafter adjourned for a short period – Appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s fixed costs thrown away

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks to review the appeal judicial registrar’s decision to dismiss his application seeking an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Where the Court is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated an arguable case on appeal – Where none of the grounds of appeal have merit – Where the granting of the extension would be an exercise in futility – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SHOW CAUSE HEARING – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal interlocutory orders – Where the orders do not constitute a judgment from which an appeal may lie – Where the orders do not determine any party’s rights – Where the appellant failed to show cause as to why the Notice of Appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where s 60CA and the best interests of the child are inapplicable – Where an order for the appointment of a single expert to prepare a Family Report is not a parenting order pursuant to s 64B – Where leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Appeal is dismissed – Where the appellant must pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where appellant alleges the primary judge failed to uphold procedural fairness, natural justice, and mishandled the conduct of the hearing – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge intimidated counsel and ‘abused’ their discretion – Where appellant alleges the primary judge was biased and failed to recuse themselves – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge failed to properly assess the available evidence – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Appeal dismissed – Appellant failed to establish any unfairness in the case management rulings made by the primary judge – The primary hearing was conducted fairly – The primary judge’s firm instruction that the appellant follow courtroom decorum is not a punitive or biased act – The primary judge’s involvement in an internal Court committee did not support a reasonable apprehension of bias – Appellant’s contentious exchange with the primary judge did not create actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias – The primary judge’s findings were reasonably open on the evidence – The primary judge provided adequate reasons – Appellant wholly unsuccessful – Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent on a party and party basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge found that the child was at an unacceptable risk in the appellant’s care – Where the appellant challenged final orders permitting the other parent to relocate internationally with the child – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – where the appellant seeks to adjourn the hearing of the appeal – where the appellant is attending a mediation with NCAT on the date of the hearing of the appeal – where the application is granted – where the hearing of the appeal is adjourned for one day

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the appellant seeks access to the full transcript of the primary proceedings at the Court’s cost, a subpoena be issued to NSW Police and leave to adduce further evidence on appeal – Where the application seeking leave to adduce further evidence on appeal is adjourned to the hearing of the substantive appeal – Where the appellant has purchased the transcript for one of the trial days – Where the appellant contends financial hardship prevents her from purchasing the balance of the transcript – Where the Court provides the transcript to litigants at its own cost only in exceptional circumstances – Where the transcript is not required for the vast number of sub-grounds of appeal as prosecuted by the appellant – Request for the Court to provide the transcript at its own cost refused – Extension of time granted for the appellant to elect to purchase the remaining transcripts and file her Summary of Argument and List of Authorities – Where the subpoena subject to leave as constructed by the appellant would be an abuse of process on appeal – Application in an Appeal refused in part.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant requests an adjournment for six months for medical reasons – Where the applicant has also filed an application for a stay before the primary judge – Where the respondent will suffer prejudice if the stay is successful and the appeal is adjourned – Where the applicant is without legal representation – Where the applicant has not adduced evidence as to any incapacity to re-engage legal representation for the purposes of the appeal – Where the medical evidence adduced by the applicant fails to address the central question for the purposes of the application for the adjournment of the appeal, being whether the applicant’s health challenges prevent her from preparing for and attending on the appeal – Application in an Appeal dismissed – Respondent’s costs of the Application in an Appeal are costs in the appellate cause.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Recovery order – Where appellant father did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Where there is no merit in the appeal – Where the orders subject of the appeal are no longer operative – No utility in allowing the appeal – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to obtain the transcript – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Where the applicant seeks an expansion of the contents of the Appeal Book – Leave granted to file a Contested Appeal Book – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EX-TEMPORE – Property settlement – Where parties were in a relationship for 34 years – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions at 75 percent in favour of the respondent and 25 per cent in favour of the appellant – Primary judge made an adjustment under s 75(2) resulting in 88 per cent distribution in favour of the respondent and 22 per cent in favour of the appellant – Where the appellant argued inadequacy of reasons – A 22 per cent distribution in favour of the appellant was outside the ambit of a reasonable assessment pursuant to the test in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – Parties agreed on terms of settlement – Orders made by consent – Appeal allowed by consent – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the appellant father attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance the day before the hearing – Where the appellant did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Appeal dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Rules. -No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge determined that family violence made the respondent’s otherwise equal contributions more difficult, onerous or arduous – No error of fact – Adequacy of reasons – Error of law – Reasons as to why the primary judge made an adjustment in favour of the respondent inadequate – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Binding Financial Agreement – Application by husband that the Binding Financial Agreement entered into with the wife be set aside pursuant to s 90K(1)(b) and (e) and s 90KA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether it would be unjust and inequitable if the Financial Agreement was not declared binding on the parties – Consideration of unconscionable conduct – Consideration of undue influence – Consideration of special/disadvantage/disability – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Consideration of what final orders are in the best interests of the youngest child who was subject to interim orders for supervised time with the father – Where final orders have previously been made for the two older siblings – Where it is in the best interests of the youngest child to make no prescribed orders to spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Oral application by the father to further cross examine the mother – Where the father alleges denial of procedural fairness on basis that his previous legal representation failed to adequately cross examine the mother in accordance with his explicit instructions – Where the evidence has not concluded – Where the father is awaiting the reallocation of legal representation pursuant to s 102NA – Leave granted to the father’s legal representatives to further cross examine the mother on limited issues.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Applications to adjourn – Where the husband twice sought to adjourn the final hearing – Where the husband failed to establish that the interests of justice required adjournment – Both adjournment applications dismissed – Application by husband to exclude aspects of an expert's report – Where expert conceded some of the opinions adopted were based on the opinions of unidentified persons – Objections sustained – Application to lead further evidence – Where husband sought to lead additional evidence of a lay witness after husband’s evidence had concluded – Where this evidence was provided late and was imprecise in nature – Application to lead further evidence dismissed.

PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the husband’s shares and options in an overseas corporation he founded make up the bulk of the parties’ wealth – Where husband contends these shares and options are not “property” – Where the inability to transfer an item will not necessarily prevent it from being classified as property – Where the evidence does not support the assertion that the husband's shares cannot be transferred – Held that both the husband's shares and options are property for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where husband seeks an asset by asset contributions assessment – Where both parties made extensive contributions over the marriage – Orders made to give each party an equal share of the net assets of the marriage.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Two children aged 11 and 9 Years – Wife seeks continuation of interim week-about – Husband and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek children live primarily with the husband during school terms – Wife has conflictual and litigious relationship with the school – Wife’s various diagnoses including ADHD and CPTSD - relevance of symptoms – Wife’s critical and demeaning attitude to the husband personally and to his relationship with the children – No likelihood of successful co-parenting relationship – Where the wife has historically been the primary carer – Both parents and experts agree current equal shared care working well – Children express no wish to move from current arrangement – Order for week about shared care – Parental responsibility – No likelihood of co-parenting and consultation – Order for sole parental responsibility in the husband.

PROPERTY – Consideration of contributions and s 79(5) factors – Consideration of role of wife and third party solicitors in the delayed settlement of the sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the husband seeks “damages” against second respondent third party solicitors or alternatively “wastage” consideration against the wife – Orders for distribution of property pool as to 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife – Consideration of companion animals being two dogs – To be considered as “items of property” and therefore limited sentimental value but an asset – Where both parties want the assets – Consideration of whether “assets” be sold or where each party retain one dog/asset where no evidence of value being impacted on the singular assets or assets as a pair.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – ENFORCEMENT – Where wife will not comply with final property orders – Where parties denied the fruits of the litigation – Where wife filed two appeals, applications for contempt, contraventions, adjournments, interim orders as well as fresh s 79A and s 65DAAA proceedings – Where one appeal struck out – Where second appeal dismissed with costs – Where wife opposes enforcement – Where wife says enforcement ought await the hearing of her s 79A application – Where preliminary evaluation of s 79A application undertaken – Orders made for enforcement – Costs order made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding on the eve of the final hearing seeking to set aside her Notice of Discontinuance – Application to set aside Notice of Discontinuance dismissed – Final hearing to proceed on an undefended basis – Costs order made against the mother.

PARENTING – Where final parenting orders were made in 2021 – Reconsideration of the time and communication that the mother has with the children – Where the children and the father have been exposed to frequent challenge and intervention as a product of the mother’s distorted perception of the father and his conduct – Orders made reducing the frequency of supervised time between the mother and the children – Orders made reducing the times and mode of communication between the mother and the children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where it was contended that the parties’ adult children held real properties on trust for their parents – Where the parties’ adult children were joined to the proceedings on the filing of the Initiating Application – Where the subject real properties have been sold – Where the adult children’s joinder to the proceedings is no longer necessary – Orders made removing the parties’ adult children as parties to the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Best interests of the child – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Where an order is made by consent for a change of residence and a three-month moratorium on time spent with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Where a harmful proceedings order was previously made against the husband – Application by the husband for a stay of orders made enforcing final orders pending an application for leave to appeal – Where the husband requires leave to institute the application for a stay – Orders made dismissing the husband’s application pursuant to s 102QAF(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – significant change of circumstances – s 65DAAA – where final orders had provided for the children to live with the father and spend professionally supervised time with the mother – where the mother sought for the children to be returned to her care – where the primary judge had found that the mother’s poor mental health posed a risk to the children – where the final orders had been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal – where the mother sought to relitigate issues determined at final hearing – where the mother made a series of unfounded and extraordinary allegations against the father in her oral submissions – no evidence of a significant change of circumstances – application dismissed.

ORDERS – harmful proceedings – where the mother had filed and attempted to file numerous applications in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia – where the mother filed multiple affidavits in support of her Application in a Proceeding – where the father sought a harmful proceedings order and that application was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where the father and children had suffered psychological harm as a result of the mother’s conduct – where the father had suffered financial detriment as a result of ongoing court events – harmful proceedings order made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Default – Where orders were made directing the mother to make submissions as to why the Court should not dismiss her relief due to her continued default in complying with orders – Where the mother has not filed her trial affidavit despite numerous orders compelling her to do so – Consideration of Pt 10.6 of the Rules – Where the Court is advised that the mother can file her trial affidavit in seven days – Where one last opportunity to comply with orders for the filing of her trial affidavit is afforded – Where the Court is not satisfied that there is a prejudice to the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife sought the joinder of eight companies – Where there is not established a basis for the appointment of new directors and the removal of others – Where no order is sought on a final basis in relation to any of the putative joinder companies, their shares or their property – Where the Court is not satisfied that they are necessary parties and consequently there is not any basis for their joinder.
 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife sought that a company be bound by orders previously made – Where the company owns a hotel in its capacity as Trustee for a unit trust – Where the company has one director and shareholder which is not the husband or the wife, or a company controlled by them – Where the Trustee is bound by the terms of the Unit Trust to act on behalf of and in the interests of all unit holders – Where the husband and wife have an interest in only one unit holder – Where the effect of the orders that the wife sought is to compel the company to deal with the property of the unit trust in favour of one unit holder over that of others – Where the Court is not satisfied that there has been established on the evidence or at law a basis for the company to be injuncted.
 

APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR – Where the wife sought that she, the husband’s litigation guardian, and an independent director be appointed directors of the joinder companies and the existing directors resign – Where the wife contended that the appointment of additional directors was necessary to protect the interests of the wife in each of the putative joinder companies – Where the relief was opposed by the first, second, fourth respondents and an interested party – Where the wife seeks no orders on a final basis in relation to the companies nor in relation to the shares held in the companies – Where the onus rests on the wife to establish a risk or danger that her final relief will be imperilled – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife has established that the balance of convenience favours the granting of injunctions.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where final orders were made on 3 April 2025 – Where, following final orders being made, the husband instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria – Where those proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) – Where the wife filed an application seeking orders to give effect to the final orders of 3 April 2025 in circumstances where the husband has been non-compliant – Husband’s application dismissed – Harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – where matter referred for interim hearing – case management – reasons made ex-parte – to assist preparation of case – relief from Harman undertaking.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where both parents alleged significant family violence – Where the child has been exposed to family violence and extended parental conflict – Where neither parent alleged an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the other’s care – Where the Court finds the child’s best interests met by continuation of equal shared care – Where both parents retain parental responsibility with prescriptive orders made for education, and health.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where limited issues in dispute – Where parties agreed for child to continue living with mother in Australia – Where father resides in USA – Consideration of s 60CC factors – Order for the mother to provide notice if relocating the child’s residence – Order for three-week school holiday block – Order for father to spend Easter holiday time with the child as culturally significant holiday – Order for father to pay deposit bond when travelling refused – Order for mother to return expired passport to father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Where the child is six years of age – Where the mother submits that the father perpetrated family violence towards her during the relationship and following separation – Where the father submits that the mother engaged in controlling behaviour – Where the court finds that each party engaged in poor conduct towards the other – Where the child was exposed to the parents’ conflict – Where the child otherwise has a positive bond with each parent – Where there is no risk of harm to the child in either parent’s care – Where orders are made for the child to live with the mother and spend gradually increasing time with the father – Where the mother is to have sole decision-making responsibility for long-term decisions – Where ancillary orders and restraints are made to minimise the risk of further conflict between deeply distrusting parents. 

PROPERTY – Preliminary procedural applications dealt with during the final hearing – Balance sheet items – Legal fees – Where the direct financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship significantly favour the husband – Where it is just and equitable to make property adjustment orders – Where the wife will have the primary care of the child in the future but where the child will spend substantial time with the husband – Where, despite the wife’s contentions, the principles of Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 are not engaged – Contribution based entitlement assessed as to the husband 62 per cent and as to the wife 38 per cent, with a 4 per cent future needs adjustment in favour of the wife – Where the wife may elect to retain the former family home subject to the payment of a sum of money to the husband.

 
CHILD SUPPORT – Application by the wife for non-periodic support by the husband, being payment of the child’s school fees – Where the husband contends that the child’s attendance at a particular school is not resolved – Where the husband conceded that he took steps with the wife to enrol the child at the school – Where it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to make the non-periodic child support order – Where the husband is to pay one half of the child’s school fees.
 

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION TO RE-OPEN – Where application made to reconsider final parenting orders – Where previous judgment found unacceptable risk – Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances – Where evidence of treating practitioner relied upon to establish changes in circumstances – Finding that circumstances have changed – Whether best interests are in favour of reconsideration - Whether evidence capable of displacing multi-factored risks - Finding that evidence lacks capacity to address displacement of risk – Not in best interests to reconsider – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Live with – Spend time with arrangements – Parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks to relocate to the United Kingdom with the child – Allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the child has significant needs – Orders made prohibiting the mother from relocating to the United Kingdom with the child – Orders made for the child to live with the mother and spend five nights per fortnight with the father – Orders made for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - final hearing adjourned due to death of significant relative – interim orders made for 2026 schooling – consent s 68B injunction regarding mother’s recent partner – father’s application to vary current interim orders pending allocation of a new final hearing date otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application brought by the respondent mother – where mother during the interim hearing did not press her interim application – interim application filed by the mother on 4 August 2025 dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – interim application brought by the applicant father (filed 6 August 2025 and amended on 18 November 2025) – where the father seeks an interim change of residence for the child to live with him - where previous interim parenting orders provided for changeovers to occur at a Contact Centre – where the mother made complaints and raised allegations against the Contact Centre leading to the Contact Centre withdrawing its services from this family – where the steps taken by the mother had the effect of frustrating the Court Orders – where the effect of the mother’s conduct has been that the child has not been able to spend any time with the father since 1 August 2025 - where the mother seeks the child remain living with her – where the evidence supports an interim change of residence to the father is in the best interests of the child – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports an interim change of residence – where the Court ordered on an interim basis that the child live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother – where the mother stated that she would not comply with the Court Order – where the Court issued a Recovery Order to in the registry.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where wife brings a barrage of applications notwithstanding final parenting and property orders untouched on appeal – Where wife agitates applications for contempt, contraventions, parenting orders, property orders, and, initiates s79A and s 65DAAA proceedings – Where many applications are discontinued by the wife months after filing – Where husband subjected to those applications even if discontinued – Whether cumulative harm to father and child – Where reasonable grounds to believe husband and child will suffer harm if further proceedings instituted – Harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Property – Bifurcation of proceedings – Where the wife joined the husband’s mother, the husband’s brother and a company to the substantive proceedings as the second, third and fourth respondents - Where the husband and the second, third and fourth respondents mutually seek that the proceedings be bifurcated to determine all third party issues prior to the competing claims pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of r 10.10 and r 10.11 – Where the Court is persuaded to bifurcate the third party claims in circumstances where there is a risk that the value of the matrimonial asset pool may be “obliterated” by the third party claims.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where the first respondent biological mother of the child did not participate – Where the second respondent asserted father of the child was incarcerated and sought no orders – Where the third respondent sought sole decision-making responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where the applicant resides in Town C and the third respondent resides in a remote community in the Northern Territory – Where each of the applicant and the third respondent contended limited financial means to facilitate a shared care arrangement or school holiday time with the other party – Consideration of unacceptable risks contended by each party.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Loss of culture, community, and kin – Where the child is Aboriginal – Where the applicant is not Aboriginal – Where the third respondent is Aboriginal and a member of the same kinship community as the child – Where the third respondent gave evidence of her awareness and understanding of the importance of culture, country, community and kin – Where the applicant gave evidence as to her asserted cultural competency and understanding of the importance of culture for Aboriginal peoples – Where the applicant concedes that there are aspects of culture such as Sorry Business and Men’s Business that she cannot provide for the child – Where it is not possible for the child to learn and gain a deep appreciation of his F/J people culture if he is not growing up on country – Where the third respondent is uniquely equipped to encourage and facilitate the child’s connection with his community, country, kin and culture – Where the Court is satisfied that the orders proposed by the third respondent enable the child to enjoy the rights identified in s 60CC(3) of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied that it is only through living on country in the care of the third respondent that the child can learn stories, Songlines, and Men’s Business – Where to order otherwise would give rise to an unacceptable risk through the loss of culture, community, and kin.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Child sexual abuse – Where the child has made disclosures of child sexual abuse to the applicant and to government agencies – Where the government agencies have not interviewed the alleged perpetrator or made conclusive findings that the child sexual abuse has occurred – Where the applicant contends that to return the child to the same remote community as the alleged perpetrator would give rise to an unacceptable risk – Where the applicant submits that there is no way that the risk can be ameliorated by orders – Where the applicant contends the risk is heightened by a denial of any risk of harm by the third respondent – Where the third respondent contends that she can ensure the safety of the child – Consideration of the contended risk event, the likelihood of it occurring and the magnitude of harm which might ensue if the risk event does occur – Where the Court is not persuaded that the risk meets the threshold of an unacceptable risk – Where the Court is satisfied that such risk as may exist is acceptable.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Premature disposal of assets – Property in Australia and overseas – Effect of family violence on the wife’s current and future circumstances – Where the wife seeks an injunction for her personal protection against the husband – Disputed loans – Where the husband contends that he owes money to third parties overseas – Where the purported creditors were not on affidavit – Where the husband contends that the parties’ daughter holds bitcoin on trust for the parties – Indemnity – Whether the wife’s dowry claim should be categorised as a liability of the husband – Contributions – Where the wife contends a historical pattern of family violence by the husband – Whether numerous disputed items be notionally added back to the asset pool.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where the husband received an inheritance post separation from the paternal grandmother – Where the value of the inheritance is in dispute but, on any case, represents a significant sum – Where there is dispute as to the dealings of property involving the paternal grandparents – Where the wife asserts that she made contributions towards the paternal grandparents – Where the Court takes a global approach – Contribution-based entitlement assessed as 70/30 in favour of the husband with a 3 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife taking into account s 75(2) factors.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Short marriage – Small property pool – Balance sheet items – Where the husband made the bulk of the financial contributions – Where the wife made the bulk of the non-financial contributions – Where the wife will have the ongoing care of the child – Where the husband reduced his superannuation to fund cryptocurrency investments – Property division 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband sought summary dismissal of the wife’s application – Where the application was refused but the parenting proceedings were stayed until the return of the child to Australia – Where the wife applies for costs of the summary dismissal proceedings – Where the practical effect was the husband was unsuccessful on the property issue but not parenting – Where neither party can easily bear a costs order – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application made for “slip rule” amendments to orders consequent to final judgment – where the applicant’s application is successful – where the respondent’s proposals would change the substance of the orders – where amendments are made to the orders to clarify the court’s intention - Application allowed.