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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim application for sale of a property – where prior sale orders made by consent – where sale has not yet been executed due to a dispute about what the ‘best arm’s length price’ obtainable means –– orders for the property to be sold at auction.

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

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the mother seeks an adjournment one month before final hearing– Where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose adjournment – Where adjournment is not warranted – Consideration of AON Risk Services v ANU – Consideration of s 69ZN of the Family Law Act – Where adjournment application dismissed – Orders made extending time for mother to file material.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment to final Order - Where the parties provided a jointly signed minute of order on 12 August 2024 seeking an amendment to the final Order made 29 May 2024 pursuant to s 79A(1A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where this Court was functus officio upon the making of the final Order – Where an Application for Consent Order was filed by the parties on 22 August 2024 and given a new file number – Where the Application was transferred to this Court on 26 August 2024 and an Order made in chambers in terms of the minute Where family law or child support proceedings cannot be instituted in this Court and the result of such jurisdictional problems creates uncertainty and unnecessary costs for litigants.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband’s parents both personally and by way of corporations they control have made significant advances of funds to the husband prior to, during the course of, and subsequent to, the parties marriage – Where the husband contends an advance in 2001 and a series of advances from 2015 to 2020 were by way of loan agreements, being liabilities in the balance sheet identifying the property of the parties – Where the wife contends that the evidence does not establish loan agreements in the terms contended by the husband, or in the alternative that recovery of the 2001 advance is statute-barred, or in the further alternative that it is not likely that either advance will be called upon to be repaid (Biltoft and Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614) – Where the husband’s initial financial contributions and the financial support provided by his parents during the marriage attracts significant weight when consideration is given to the use made of those contributions (Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844) – Where both the parties worked hard in their respective spheres throughout the marriage relationship – Where the wife makes a Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 contention that her contributions were made more onerous and arduous – Orders made adjusting the property of the parties 45.5 per cent to the wife and 54.5 per cent to the husband.

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

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – COSTS – Where the wife seeks costs of interlocutory applications by the husband for appointment of a litigation guardian and injunctions – Where the proceedings were before the Court three times and the parties entered into consent orders – Where the wife seeks costs as agreed or assessed on a party/party basis – Where the husband’s application for a litigation guardian was inappropriate and should not have been brought on the basis of the available evidence – Where the husband’s conduct in bringing the application for a litigation guardian justifies an award of costs in the wife’s favour – Where both parties made offers in writing to resolve claims for injunctive relief – Where the ultimate consent position reached by the parties was closer to what was proffered by the wife than the husband – Where the conduct of the husband in relation to the injunctive orders sought does not justify an order of costs in the wife’s favour – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs of his interlocutory application as agreed or assessed as to 30 per cent only of those costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Gender Dysphoria –Where consent orders are made – Where the Court distinguishes this case from the facts of that in Re Kelvin – – Where all parties seek a declaration of Gillick competence for the subject child – Where the subject child wishes to undergo “stage two” gender affirming treatment – Where the Court declares that the child is Gillick competent – Where an auxiliary name change order is sought to affirm the new gender identity of the child – Where the Court considers that the proposed name change will benefit the welfare of the child – Where the Court discusses the benefit of including subject children of advanced age in gender affirming proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility – Spend time with arrangements – Where the mother alleges that the father sexually abused his niece – Where the mother alleges family violence by the father – Orders made for sole parental responsibility – Orders for the father to spend time with the child two occasions per week supervised or in a public place.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application by all parties – proceeding fixed for one month duration – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether either parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Whether either parent has capacity to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent – Where it is found that the mother made false claims that the father coerced her into having sex and/or raped her – Where the mother’s claim that the father sexually abused the child is groundless – Whether the child can have a relationship with both parents if she remains in the primary care of the mother – Where it is found that it is in the child’s best interests to live with the father – Where the mother will be restrained from spending any time or communicating with the child for a period of six weeks – Where following the moratorium, the mother’s time with the child will be professionally supervised until 2027.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for final parenting orders – Where the children have been living with the mother since the parties’ separation in 2019 – Where the children have spent supervised time with the father since June 2023 – Where the Secretary of the NSW Department of Communities and Justice intervened in the proceedings – Where both parents suffer from conditions which compromise their parenting capacity – Where the Secretary proposed the Minister having parental responsibility for the children for a period of 12 months and they live with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer railed against the children living with either parent – Where the father has remained abstinent from alcohol for the past 18 months – Where after years of intensive involvement by the child welfare agency with the mother, the agency has no faith in her parenting capacity – Where the physical, developmental, medical and educational needs of the children are likely to be better met if they live with the father – Ordered the father have parental responsibility for decisions about the children’s residence and they live with him – Ordered the Minister have parental responsibility in respect of all other major long-term issues affecting the children for 12 months – Ordered the children spend substantial and significant time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Exclusion from matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks the sole use and occupation of the matrimonial home – Where the husband opposes the wife’s application and submits that the parties can co-exist under one roof – Consideration of the circumstances of the parties and whether an exclusive occupation order is necessary – Order for the exclusive use and occupation of the home made.

FAMILY LAW – forum dispute – where applicant contends Australia is most appropriate forum to determine property dispute and seeks declaration to that effect– where respondent contends New Zealand most appropriate forum and seeks Australian process be stayed – stay application dismissed – restraint sought against respondent dealing with property interest in New Zealand granted – no declaration about forum made

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO PROPERTY – where de facto relationship found to have commenced in 2001 prior to the respondent living in Australia – where parties separated in August 2009 – where parties lived separated under the one roof for about two years – where real property held as joint tenants - where significant post-separation contributions made over many years -  where husband 28 years older than the wife – where both parties have re-partnered.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – whether an application for costs is made following consent orders – whether the conduct of the Applicant necessitates a costs order being made – whether indemnity or fixed costs ought to be awarded – costs order made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – husband and wife separated in 2000 – purchased a real property in joint names in 2001 – parties divorced in 2004 – there was never a formal property settlement – wife lived in and maintained the real property for 24 years – third parties seek sale of real property to satisfy a criminal compensation order against husband for sexual offending after separation – husband in prison and filed a submitting notice – competing applications pursuant to section 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and/or section 79 of the Act – principles of constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel – found that husband is estopped from now arguing he has a beneficial interest in the real property – held that the husband holds his interest in the real property on trust for the wife – orders made under section 78(2) to give effect to the change of title – in the alternative an assessment was made as to what orders (if any) would be just and equitable under section 79 of the Act – determined the wife should receive 100 per cent of the pool. 

FAMILY LAW – review application – de facto application for interim spousal maintenance dismissed.   

FAMILY LAW – Property enforcement – payment of interest – where final property adjustment orders made by the Court requiring that the respondent pay a sum of money to the applicant within 60 days and interest for late payment – where the applicant seeks interest for late payment of the judgment debt – finding that the respondent paid the judgment debt to the applicant 59 days late – finding that in the circumstances the respondent owes the applicant interest for late payment of the judgment debt – orders that the respondent pay the applicant interest on the judgment debt at the rate prescribed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – Property enforcement – division of recovered funds – where final property adjustment orders made provision for division of monies recovered from a third party after the deduction of “reasonable legal expenses” – where the parties agree that the respondent recovered the monies in full and paid a sum to the applicant – where the applicant disputes the respondent’s claimed deductions and seeks a further payment – findings in respect of which of the respondent’s claimed deductions constitute “reasonable legal expenses” – orders that the respondent make a further payment to the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – REVIEW – Procedural – Applicant seeks to review a decision of a deputy registrar who rejected the filing of the Applicant’s initiating application due to the non-filing of a certificate from a Family Dispute Resolution practitioner pursuant to section 60I(7) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Mention following afterhours ex parte orders placing child on the watch list – Where parties seek final orders by consent at mention – Where court satisfied that final orders are in the best interests of the child – Final orders made by consent – watchlist order – authenticated consent.  

FAMILY LAW – review application - proposition that there is a want of independence by the expert - appears to be parent-focused, rather than child-focused – application for review dismissed.    

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks to retain more than 100% of the value of the parties’ assets – whether funds paid by wife’s father should be considered a loan or contribution – where the wife fails to challenge expert valuation evidence. 

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Circumstances justifying order – Father left the country – Father’s application doomed to fail – Costs awarded to the mother on a party and party basis.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim hearing – proposed change of residence – child living nine nights with the mother and five with father – wishes of the child – found to be unacceptable risk of harm in mother’s care – immediate change of residence to the father – limited term time and holidays to the mother – mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and to commence with a psychologist – changeover in public place when not at school. 

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Applicant a former stepfather seeking shared decision-making and equal time with child – First Respondent mother opposing any time –– finding of coercion and control – unacceptable risk – orders made for sole decision-making to the First Respondent mother and limited time with the Applicant.

FAMILY LAW – property proceedings – undefended hearing – where the applicant sought to dissolve a partnership between her and the respondent and indemnity in circumstances where the respondent continued to operate businesses owned by the partnership – where the respondent has since separation used partnership funds to purchase other businesses and assets – where the applicant seeks payment of a lump sum to her by the respondent as a final property adjustment – orders for the unilateral dissolution of the partnership under state law and payment of a fixed sum to the applicant by the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the applicant seeks that the respondent pay her costs of the property proceedings – findings that the respondent’s non-engagement with the proceedings has necessitated the applicant incurring legal expenses – orders that the respondent pay the applicant’s legal costs as assessed in accordance with the rules of court.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where a conflictual relationship does not prohibit equal time arrangements – where it is in the child’s best interests to spend equal time with each parent.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where legal liabilities are excluded from the pool – where an adjustment to non-superannuation assets would be fanciful – where a 10% adjustment of superannuation is made in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - where the husband concedes the wife has need for maintenance – where the husband’s liabilities cannot be ignored - where the wife could not satisfy the Court the husband has the capacity to pay maintenance. 

FAMILY LAW – parenting – partial consent parenting orders – restraint of physical discipline pursuant to s 68B – orders restraining application of gun licence – overseas travel allowed – child's name removed from airport watch list – identity contact.  

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where a child was returned to Belgium following a successful ‘Hague Convention’ application – Where orders regarding the child’s living arrangements were subsequently made by a Belgian court – Where the mother then returned to Australia and filed an application in this court seeking a recovery order – Whether Australia is a ‘clearly inappropriate’ forum to reconsider orders concerning child – Whether a recovery order should issue to bring the child back to Australia – Whether the doctrine of res judicata and/or Anshun estoppel applies – Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since orders were made by the Australian and Belgian Courts. 

FAMILY LAW - partial consent parenting orders – three remaining issues in dispute – parental responsibility – commencement and duration of father’s time – Christmas – mother’s proposed orders are in the best interest of the child.   

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – one child (aged 10) – final parenting orders made by consent on fourth day of final hearing in respect of most issues – child’s schooling for final year of primary school and secondary school in dispute – order for child to remain at his current primary school unless otherwise agreed – insufficient evidence to determine child’s secondary schooling.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – alleged loans by second and third respondent to spouse parties, exceeding value of spouse parties’ non-superannuation assets – finding monies were advanced by way of loan and are repayable by spouse parties – order for repayment of funds to second and third respondent from sale of spouse parties’ real estate – spouse parties liable in respect of remaining debt as reflected in loan agreements – remaining assets and superannuation of modest value – order for spouse parties to retain those remaining assets in their possession and an adjusting payment by husband for wife to receive 55% of remaining assets and superannuation and husband 45% - directions for filing of submissions in relation to costs. 

FAMILY LAW – Review of Orders made 19 June 2025 – seeking removal of name of Airport Watchlist – removal of freezing order – removal of second respondent to the proceedings– application for review is dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – After hours service – urgent watchlist order application – ex parte application – where the Applicant fears the Respondent will leave the Commonwealth of Australia – where the Respondent has strong ties with Country B.   

FAMILY LAW - Property – transfer of small claims of frozen funds – summary s 79 order - property proceedings are otherwise dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – Review application –  change of venue from Town B to Brisbane – application for review dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – specialised Indigenous List – one child (aged 5) – child and parties Aboriginal – family affected by numerous traumatic events, including death of child’s mother – child lives with maternal grandmother pursuant to interim orders – ongoing concerns of drug and alcohol use by father and paternal grandmother – time with father and paternal grandmother has been suspended after the paternal grandmother removed the child from the maternal grandmother’s care contrary to interim orders and recovery order made and executed – order for maternal grandmother to have sole decision-making responsibility and for child to live with her, ultimately by agreement – order for child to resume spending supervised time with father and paternal grandmother notwithstanding opposition by maternal grandmother and recommendation of independent children’s lawyer – various injunctions made as sought by the parties. 

FAMILY LAW – Ex tempore ruling – respondent husband’s application that the Court grant a certificate pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – where respondent husband did not appear at the interlocutory hearing due to unspecified medical reason – where respondent husband failed to provide medical evidence – where applicant wife sought that the application be dismissed – application dismissed with costs.

FAMILY LAW – Property proceedings – undefended hearing – parties married in 2004 and separated in 2015 – divorce order made in 2017 – proceeding commenced out of time in October 2024 – major asset of the parties interest in partnership operating a farm – farm acquired in 2015 as a result of husband’s capital contribution – wife left Australia shortly after acquisition of farm and has never worked or contributed to it -farm running at a loss – wife agreed to extension of time to bring proceeding but has not filed any documents in the case – wife has failed to comply with orders to file documents – assessment of contributions – just and equitable – circumstances justify one party retaining identifiable assets.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child live with the mother and spend no time with or communicate with the father – where the father’s evidence is inconsistent – where the father’s use of cannabis and family violence poses an unacceptable risk to the mother and child’s safety.

FAMILY LAW — PARENTING — Whether the child will be placed at an unacceptable risk of harm if she spends any time or has any communication with the Father — Whether the Mother’s parenting of the child will be discernibly impacted if the Father spends any time or has any communication with the child — Whether the Mother should have sole decision making responsibility — Where the Father accepts that he has committed acts of family violence — Where the child deeply impacted by her exposure to family violence — Psychological wellbeing of the child a major consideration. 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final parenting orders –Whether the child should travel overseas to spend time with the father – Logistics of the child travelling overseas – Best interests of the child – Risk – Family violence – Father convicted of assaulting the mother – Coercive and controlling behaviour – Father’s relationship with other daughter broken down.

FAMILY LAW – De Facto Property - where the husband received a post-separation inheritance, where modest asset pool – where husband’s inheritance largely either wasted or unavailable – where husband transferred the remaining significant asset to second respondent - where wife seeks a s106B order – where husband and second respondent allege transfer made in payment of a debt - s 106B order made. 

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Urgent application to enable mother to obtain passport for child without consent of father – Where mother seeking to return to the Commonwealth of Australia from the Republic of India – Where parties’ two children travelled to foreign jurisdiction with the Father with the Mother’s consent – Where the Father returned one child to the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to consent orders but failed to return the other child – Extant final parenting orders provide that children live with mother – Where recovery order previously made – Where India a non-Hague country – Where mother travelled to India and issued writ of habeas corpus proceedings to recover child – Matter dealt with efficiently and admirably by foreign Court – Foreign Court orders compel father to return child to mother – Where child returned to mother’s care in foreign jurisdiction via foreign child protection agency – Father’s consent to cancellation of existing passport and issue of another ordered be dispensed with – Australian passport authorities requested to deal with application as a matter of real urgency – Child returned to Australia with mother following orders being made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim hearing – parenting arrangements following short form report – prior to testing of evidence – weight to be given to wishes of children – one child with special needs and mental health issues – need for consistency and stability for children – lack of communication between parties – increased time – issue of shared care to be determined at final hearing. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim spousal maintenance – lack of evidence about parties’ financials – applicant did not establish a need for maintenance – application for spousal maintenance dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – parenting – interlocutory – s 65DAAA – where final parenting orders made in 2021 for child aged 8 years – where the father seeks that the final orders be reconsidered – where the mother seeks that the application is dismissed – whether there has been a significant change in circumstances – where the father has the capacity to deceive –  where the father has a complex relationship with alcohol –  history of poor mental health and perpetration of family violence –  where the father has continued to attend therapy and complete various courses – where the father’s evidence often reliant on self-reporting – unable to make any finding that the father’s insight has improved –  where no significant change in circumstances found – application dismissed.