FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for transcript at public expense – Parenting proceedings – In the alternative the appellant requests dispensation from requirement to file transcript – Whether exceptional circumstances established – Financial hardship – Proportionality of cost – Necessity of transcript for appeal – Prima facie merits of appeal – Allegations of procedural unfairness and bias – Scope of transcript sought includes case management events – Appellant self‑represented – Whether grounds of appeal sufficiently particularised – Application for transcript at public expense dismissed – Application allowed in part – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against final parenting orders made by consent – No error of law or fact established – No breach of procedural fairness established – Where the primary judge did not err in the exercise of discretion – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant appeals from interim and final parenting orders – Where the substantive proceedings are ongoing – Where final orders were made restraining the appellant from relocating internationally with the children – Where interim orders were made for the appellant to undergo mandatory therapy and for the reversal of care should the appellant fail to comply with therapy orders – Reversal of care as a self-executing order set aside on the basis that it is unreasonable and plainly wrong – Interim orders for mandatory therapy set aside on the basis that they are stand-alone orders untethered to a parenting order – Appeal allowed in part and the balance of the appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant filed an Amended Application in an Appeal seeking an extension of time to file and serve an Amended Amended Notice of Appeal, an Amended Summary of Argument and an Amended List of Authorities, leave to issue a subpoena to produce documents directed to his prior solicitors and leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal – Where the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agreed to leave being granted to the applicant to file and rely on his Amended Amended Notice of Appeal, his Amended Summary of Argument and his Amended List of Authorities consequential to an extension of time for them to file their Summary of Arguments and Lists of Authorities – Where all parties agreed that the relief sought as to leave to adduce further evidence on the appeal will be listed for hearing before the Full Court in conjunction with the substantive appeal – Where the relief sought as to the issue of a subpoena to the applicant’s prior solicitors was withdrawn on condition – Order made extending the time for the applicant to file his Amended Amended Notice of Appeal, Amended Summary of Argument and Amended Lists of Authorities – Order made extending the time for the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to file their Summary of Arguments and Lists of Authorities – Costs reserved to the hearing of the substantive appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant filed an Application in an Appeal seeking that the Court supply five out of eight days of the digital transcript before the primary judge, or in the alternative that the Court dispense with her obligation to obtain the transcript, permitting her to prosecute the appeal without it – Where the applicant’s contentions as to a failure to afford her procedural fairness or occasioning a denial of natural justice because the Court will not meet the cost of a digital transcript are rejected – Where the Court is not satisfied it should take the exceptional step of obtaining and funding the transcript as sought – Order made dispensing with the requirement for the applicant to obtain and provide the digital transcript – Where the applicant filed a second Application in an Appeal seeking a review of the appeal judicial registrar’s procedural orders – The gravamen of the relief sought on review is to “remove” the appeal judicial registrar “entirely from the matter”, and to adjourn the scheduled appeal hearing – Where the applicant sought an extension of time to file her Summary of Argument – Where it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that litigation progresses efficiently and is not delayed – Application in an Appeal for a review of the appeal judicial registrar’s procedural orders dismissed – Respondent’s costs of and incidental to each Application in an Appeal reserved to the substantive appeal hearing.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Contributions – Major asset is shares and options in a valuable company which the appellant co-founded which significantly increased post-separation – Contributions assessed as equal by primary judge – Appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – EVIDENCE – Foreign law – Findings as to transferability of shares and options in company in the United States of America – Whether primary judge could consider terms of foreign legislation in absence of expert evidence – Findings as to foreign law are questions of fact – Findings of primary judge open on evidence before primary judge – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant seeks to review a decision of an appeal registrar dismissing an application seeking an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Where the time for filing any Notice of Appeal from the judgment expired months ago – 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 futile – Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Leave to appeal – Enforcement of final orders involving funds held in a foreign jurisdiction – Where the applicant was required to facilitate the transfer of funds, including executing a Power of Attorney – Where the applicant refused to execute the Power of Attorney and a senior judicial registrar executed it pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the applicant contended the Power of Attorney was invalid, exceeded the scope of the final orders and was procured by fraud – Where no evidence supported the allegation of fraud – Where the applicant contended denial of procedural fairness – Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant was afforded a full opportunity to be heard – Where none of the grounds of appeal identify any appealable error made by the primary judge – Where the appeal is without merit – Leave to appeal is refused – Costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition and provision of transcript – Where the appellant seeks to expedite her appeal against interim parenting orders – Where the appellant contends the child is at a risk of harm in the care of the respondents – Where the appeal has been listed for hearing in less than three months – Where the listing amounts to an expedition of the appeal – Where the appellant seeks that the Court meet the costs of the transcript – Where the appeal is against interim orders and no cross-examination occurred – Where the grounds of appeal do not identify a need for a transcript – Appellant relieved of the obligation to provide the transcript – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from a divorce order – Whether there was an error of fact – Whether the respondent’s conduct of the litigation was vexatious or oppressive – No error found on the part of the primary judge – Appeal dismissed – Order made for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Transcript – Where the appeal was taken to be abandoned by operation of r 13.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the appellant seeks reinstatement of the appeal – Where the proposed appeal is devoid of merit – Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons in relation to the contribution-based findings and the adjustment under s 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and further contended that the primary judge made factual errors more properly characterised as challenges to weight – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions in a segmented and compartmentalised manner – Where orders were made reflecting a division of 56 per cent to the appellant and 44 per cent to the respondent – Where the appellant made significant contributions by way of inheritance from her father’s estate shortly prior to separation– Where the Court is satisfied that the primary judge’s approach to the assessment of contributions was erroneous – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates ordered.

ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS – Where in the re-exercise of discretion, the Court is to undertake an instinctive synthesis of the matters in s 79(4), assessing the contributions of the parties holistically and not by aggregating individual components – Where the appellant’s inheritance represented nearly 50 per cent of the parties’ existing property – Upon re exercise, the appellant’s contributions assessed at 65 per cent – Where the Court was not satisfied that any matter warranted an adjustment under s 79(5) – Orders varied to reflect the revised percentage distribution of the parties’ property.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave sought to institute appellate proceedings – Where the applicant is subject to a harmful proceedings order – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal final parenting orders – Where the affidavit in support of the application does not substantially comply with subsection 102QAE(3)(b) – Where the proposed appeal is without reasonable grounds and therefore is vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal where applicant subject to a harmful proceedings order pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Appeal against findings of contravention – Where conditional term of imprisonment imposed – Whether civil or criminal standard of proof applies in proceedings resulting in an order for imprisonment – Application for leave to file a Notice of Appeal allowed with respect to whether criminal standard of proof should have been applied.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the final orders provide the children live with the mother and the mother to have sole responsibility, spend supervised time with the father prior to commencement of unsupervised time and family reunification therapy – Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dismissed – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to accord him procedural fairness and the reasons were infected with various legal, factual and discretionary errors – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal are misconstrued – Where the appellant’s Summary of Argument is dense, prolix and non-compliant with the relevant Rules – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Costs – Where the husband had been ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the financial proceedings on an indemnity basis in the sum of $171,900 – Where the husband appealed the substantive judgment but the appeal was subsequently deemed abandoned – Where the basis for the costs order was a range of matters, but primarily the husband’s conduct – Where no reasonable apprehension of bias – Where no failure to take into account a material consideration – Where no material error of fact – Where the husband’s grounds of appeal were unsuccessful, save only for a minor miscalculation by the primary judge as to the quantum of costs ordered – Where that error, when it became apparent to the wife and her lawyers, was conceded – Where the husband could have sought to rectify the error pursuant to the slip rule – Where the husband had already paid the costs ordered – Where, in the circumstances, notwithstanding his very modest success on appeal, the husband is nevertheless ordered to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal – Where the overpayment by the husband by reason of the miscalculation is offset against the costs of the appeal payable by him.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Application for the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal – Where the applicant’s appeal was allowed – Where the respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed – Where the Full Court set aside the property division orders and re-exercised the discretion – Where the respondent has to repay the applicant a portion of her original cash settlement sum – Where the respondent has significant real property – Where a number of the applicant’s grounds of appeal were unsuccessful – Where slip rule orders rendered many of the grounds of cross-appeal nugatory – Where a costs order is not justified – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the appellant seeks review of the appeal registrar’s decision to summarily dismiss the appeal – Where the Further Amended Notice of Appeal is incurably defective – Where the Court is satisfied the grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospects of success – Application dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Ex parte injunctions – Procedural steps required when respondent is not heard before making an injunctive order – Importance of procedural steps to minimise procedural unfairness inherent in ex parte applications – Importance of directions for service and the allocation of a further listing date to allow the respondent an opportunity to be heard., Powers pursuant to Part VIIIAA with respect to third parties – Requirement to identify relevant “property of a party to a marriage” to engage s 90AF – Section 90AF is not a free ranging power – Party seeking orders may be required to show “serious question to be tried” in the form of a cause of action or statutory claim that relevant “property” is “property of a party to the marriage” – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 90AF.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the wife sought leave to adduce further evidence in the appeal to support an application that the appeal be summarily dismissed – Where the further evidence was contended to establish the husband to be in disobedience of an order in the proceeding – Where the wife relied on the principles identified in Watson & Watson (2013) FLC 93-530 seeking an exercise of discretion not to permit the party in disobedience of an order to be heard (“the benching rule”) – Application in an Appeal allowed – Wife’s application for summary determination of the appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – Error in relying on extraneous material – Where the error is not material so as to amount to a miscarriage of justice – Contended factual and discretionary errors not established – Contended error as to payment of capital gains tax from the default sale of real property not established – Where the possible incident of capital gains tax was considered by way of considerations, s 79(5) factors pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the form of the order made – Appeal dismissed – Order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal by the husband from a costs order against him – Cross-appeal by the wife from the costs order and enforcement orders against her for the sale of a property – Complaints about broad-brush approach to fixing costs – Where the primary judge assumed a taxation would result in a reduced costs figure – Where the primary judge’s approach was permissible – Adequacy of reasons – Where the wife’s application for indemnity costs was doomed to fail – Where the wife raised an issue with potential forgery by the husband in relation to the mortgage over a property the subject of the enforcement orders – Further evidence allowed – Where the potential forgery may render the enforcement order unreasonable – Where the evidence may have resulted in an adjournment to obtain more detailed material from the police – Cross-appeal allowed in part – Enforcement application remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge varied final parenting orders governing the time the child spends with the father, commencing immediately after school – Where the mother contends the primary judge had no power to vary the final orders – Where the primary judge correctly relied upon s 70NBC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as the source of power to vary the existing final orders – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against final parenting orders providing for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Where the mother sought to relocate with the child – Where each parent applied for the child’s residence but proposed alternatives if not granted – Whether the mother was denied procedural fairness – Where the mother alleged the primary judge should have reconvened the Court to seek further submissions on her alternative position – Where the mother had ample opportunity to present her case – Where the primary judge was not required to disclose provisional views before delivering judgment – Where the primary judge made no factual mistake in finding the father provided the child with the most stability – Appeal dismissed – Costs – Where the parties agreed costs should be in a fixed sum if the appeal was dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the primary judge granted the respondent de facto wife leave to commence proceedings for financial relief out of time – Where the applicant de facto husband seeks leave to appeal – Where the applicant contends the primary judge erred in finding trust funds existed – Where the parties were only in dispute about the correct amount of the funds – Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness – Where the hearing was contested and the applicant was permitted to cross-examine the respondent – Where the primary judge did not err in finding the respondent would suffer financial hardship if denied leave to commence proceedings for financial relief out of time – Application for leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals from final parenting and property orders – Where the children were ordered to live with the appellant and that she have sole-decision making responsibility for them – Where the appellant complains of inadequate reasons in respect of limitations placed on her decision-making responsibilities - No error established – Where the appellant contends an adversarial report relied on by the primary judge was inadmissible – Where there was no application to exclude the adversarial report and the appellant relied on it in closing submissions – Whether the primary judge erred in her Honour’s application of s 79(3)(a)(i) and s 79(5)(v) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Treatment of monies held in trust by the respondent’s solicitor – Treatment of the respondent’s employee entitlements where he is the sole shareholder and director of the company – Treatment of missing chattels – Treatment of non-disclosure – Where the primary judge did not give adequate weight to the appellant’s initial contributions – Property appeal allowed in part – Re-exercise of discretion – Property adjustment by way of a superannuation splitting order – Parenting appeal dismissed – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – ENFORCEMENT – Where the husband alleged the wife breached final property orders and filed an enforcement application – Where the husband appeals the dismissal of that application – Where the final orders appointed the wife as trustee for sale of two real properties – Where the orders enabled the husband to compete with other prospective purchasers to acquire either or both properties on the open market – Where the primary judge found the wife breached the final orders – Where the primary judge incorrectly found the husband tried to acquire title to the properties in an illegitimate way – Where the decision to refuse the enforcement of the final orders was plainly erroneous – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Supplementary procedural orders made to facilitate the implementation of the final orders – Costs awarded to the husband in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent’s appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the applicant has limited financial means – Where the respondent has apparent wealth but now claims to be impecunious – Where the respondent paid security for costs of the appeal which would cover the majority of the claimed costs – Costs order justified – Whether counsel’s fees should be as charged or at scale – Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals final parenting orders that provide for the children to live with the respondent and have no time with the appellant – Where the primary judge found the appellant was coercive and controlling, had a “monumental absence of insight” and posed an “unacceptable risk” of harm – Where the grounds of appeal allege bias, errors of fact, challenges to weight, errors in law, inadequate reasons and unreasonable outcome – Where the appellant appeals property orders made by a different judge in a separate judgment – Where no appealable error is established in either appeal – Property and parenting appeals dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the husband seeks that the wife pay him periodic spousal maintenance for four years – Consideration of the obligations of disclosure codified in s 71B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the obligation extends to disclosure of all relevant and material facts, including both documents and information – Where issue existed as to the historic and current income, income earning capacity, property and financial resources of each party – Consideration of how to treat financial disclosure failures – Where it is important to engage with the particular facts of the disclosure failures and the inferences that should be drawn from them – Where compliance with obligations of disclosure has implications for evidentiary outcomes – Where failure to comply with the duty by incomplete or inadequate disclosure is relevant to the assessment of evidence, the drawing of inferences and bears on the question of discharge of an onus of proof – Where the husband bears the onus of fact proving his reasonable periodic needs and the extent to which he is unable to support himself – Where the husband has not discharged that evidentiary onus – Husband’s application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the applicant mother has not filed substantive material in over two years and failed to appear at trial – Where leave is granted for the respondent father to proceed on an undefended basis as against the mother – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agree upon final parenting orders to be made – Where the mother has an extensive history of illicit drug use and mental illness and has not put any current material in relation thereto before the Court – Where the children were removed from the mother’s care in 2024 and placed into the care of the father and paternal grandmother by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing – Where the mother has not spent unsupervised time with the children since their removal from her care – Where there is an extensive history of allegations and cross-allegation of family violence by each parent – Where allegations of sexual abuse against the father were fabricated at the instigation of the mother – Where the mother is diagnosed with mental illness – Where persistent contraventions of intervention orders by the mother led to a Community Corrections Order being made against her – Where the mother has not spent any time with the children since early 2026 notwithstanding orders permitting her to do so – Where final parenting orders are made by consent as between the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the children to live with the father and spend professionally supervised time with the mother for two hours each quarter.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child has only spent professionally supervised time with the Father for more than two years – Where the child is five years old – Where the Mother has always been the child’s primary carer – Where the Mother initially sought a finding that the Father had sexually abused the child – Where at the conclusion of the hearing the Mother did not seek a finding of sexual abuse nor a finding of unacceptable risk of sexual abuse – Where the Mother genuinely believes that the child has been sexually abused by the Father – Where findings made that the Father perpetrated family violence including of a coercive and controlling kind – Where the Mother sought a finding that the child is at unacceptable risk of harm other than sexual harm in the care of the Father – Where the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the child is at unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm in the care of the Mother arising from her fixed false belief that the child has been sexually abused by the Father – Where the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek orders for a change of residence – Where the Mother seeks orders that the child spend no time and have no communication with Father or limited daytime only as an alternative – Where Arrighetti & Qodirova (2026) FLC 94-292 considered – Where “Re Andrew cases” considered – Where the child is not at unacceptable risk in the unsupervised care of the Father – Where risks to the child of a change of residence outweigh risks to the child of remaining in the primary care of the Mother with unsupervised time to the Father – Where orders made for the child to remain living with the Mother – Where orders made for the child to spend gradually increasing overnight time with the Father – Where certain restraints made against both parents.

FAMILY LAW – APPOINTMENT OF LITIGATION GUARDIAN – Where the parties consent to the appointment of a litigation guardian for the third respondent – Consideration of the evidence supporting the appointment of a litigation guardian – Litigation guardian appointed.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Consent – Where the applicant asserts she was not capable of giving real consent to the marriage due to mental illness and inebriation – Where the respondent submitted to the application by way of a Submitting Notice – Where the evidence supports a finding that the applicant was not capable of giving real consent – Where finding that the marriage is void – Where finding that the application for nullity be granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Relocation – Where the father seeks for the children to be permitted to relocate with him to Country C – Where the mother consents to the relocation in respect of the older child but opposes the relocation in respect of the younger child – Where the parties and the children are dual citizens of Australia and Country C – Where there are adult children not the subject of the proceeding who have relocated or will relocate to Country C – Where the older child the subject of the proceeding has a strong wish to relocate to Country C – Where the mother says the younger child’s developmental needs will not be met in Country C – Where the father disputes the characterisation of the younger child’s developmental needs – Where the mother did not advance an alternative position if her application to remain living with the younger child in Australia is not acceded to – Where finding that it is in the best interests of the children for them to be permitted to relocate to Country C.

PROPERTY – Where the parties own assets and liabilities in Australia and in Country C – Where the parties each received partial property payments during the currency of the proceedings – Where the wife sought to notionally add back property to the pool – Where finding that the husband has significant financial resources in Country C and a greater income earning capacity – Where finding that the parties’ contributions are assessed as equal – Where finding that the parties’ current and future circumstances warrant an adjustment in the wife’s favour – Where finding that the net asset pool should be divided 62/38 in favour of the wife – Where finding that the wife should receive periodic spousal maintenance for a fixed period.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) has sought to be discharged consequent upon the mother’s conduct preventing the ICL from discharging its statutory function – Where the ICL made an application for each parent to contribute to its costs – Where the application for the father to contribute to the ICL’s costs is dismissed – Where the circumstances justify an order that the mother pay the ICL’s costs from her entitlement pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) when it is realised.

FAMILY LAW – Harmful proceedings order – application for leave to institute further proceedings – alleged contraventions of final parenting orders – no sufficient basis for leave – proposed proceedings vexatious – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – SEPARATE ISSUES HEARING – Separate issue hearing to determine beneficial interests in a real property as between four parties – Compromise during the trial – Consideration of s 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and accrued jurisdiction as to the existence of a joint endeavour constructive trust – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to put additional documents and information to the single Country L real property valuation expert appointed pursuant to ch 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where there has been significant delay in the expert providing his reports – Where it is unknown as to whether the husband’s contentions, if put to the expert, will further delay the publication of the reports – Where the husband can put his contentions to the expert after the reports have been published for the purposes of clarification by adopting the procedures contained in Div 7.1.6 of the Rules and can test the assumptions upon which the expert’s opinion are based in cross-examination – Where it is not in the interest of the progression of the litigation to further delay for an unknown period of time the reports to be produced by the ch 7 single Country L real property valuation expert – Application in a Proceeding dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Affidavits – Where the father sought to adduce a further affidavit late into the proceedings – Where the nature of the evidence he sought to adduce has been dealt with in the proceedings – Where the admission of the evidence would further delay the proceedings – Where the affidavit was not permitted to be adduced.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Requests to attend by electronic means – Where the witnesses are located in China but propose to give evidence via video link from Country KK – Discussion of relevant law – Circumstances require the giving of evidence via video link – Where the evidence is relevant to issues in the proceedings – Where the evidence is not permitted to be given from China – No impediment to evidence being given from Country KK – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Short-form reasons for second interim parenting judgment within two months – Where single expert witness stresses that the significance of the child’s attempted suicide cannot be overestimated – Where parties agree to seek interim orders only and forego cross-examination of each other at this stage in the proceedings – Where single expert opines that it is essential that parents undergo therapy with each other, and him, and that any reintroduction of the father to the oldest child (who had attempted suicide) must await therapeutic intervention between the parents – Where single expert witness estimates that it would be at least four months before the father could commence spending time with the oldest child, and then only in therapy – Where younger child presents very differently to her sister and where her disposition supports an immediate reintroduction of time between herself and the father and the paternal grandparents – Where both siblings are to spend time with paternal grandparents but the father is not to be an ingredient of the oldest child’s time with the paternal grandparents pending further order of the court or agreement between the parties – Where interim orders made for parents to have therapy with single expert witness followed by the father and oldest child to have therapy to repair their relationship, and possible, but not compulsory, time between the two thereafter – Adjournment for four months for case management hearing and final hearing to commence in eight months.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PROPERTY – ASSET PRESERVATION ORDER – order made pending further hearing of this application.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – 15 year relationship – Where the married parties had two children together – Where the husband was the prime mover behind the establishment of a business in the resource sector – Where the various corporate and other entities established by the parties operated the business in Australia and overseas –Where the wife made multiple allegations of fraud against the husband – Where none of the wife’s allegations against the husband have been proved – Where the Court concluded that the husband has not behaved dishonestly – Where there was a dispute between the parties as to the value to be ascribed to the business – Where the expert evidence is accepted by the Court as to the valuation of business – Where the valuation date accepted by the Court was a date some years prior to the final hearing but where there was no acceptable alternative valuation available – A consideration of contributions; present and future circumstances and justice and equity – A consideration of the principles which ought to be followed by counsel and solicitors before making allegations of fraud.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the child – Where criminal proceedings against the father had been withdrawn by the Crown – Where this Court concluded by way of a positive finding that the father had not at any time sexually abused the child – Where the mother alleged that she had been raped by the father on two occasions – Where a District Court jury found the father not guilty of those charges – Where this Court came to a conclusion there was insufficient evidence to make a finding that the father had raped the mother, although the Court was able to conclude that the father was a credible witness – Where the Court also concluded that the evidence of the mother, in relation to many aspects of the proceedings, was most unsatisfactory – Where, during the course of the final hearing, the mother (on day three) made certain crucial concessions including concessions that the father had not sexually abused the child and including concessions that the residence of the child should change (to the father) and that there should be a moratorium of the mother’s time and communication with the child and a concession that there should also be a period of supervised time between the child and the mother – Where the Court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to live with the father – and that there should be: the imposition of a moratorium of the mother’s time and communication with the child for a period of five months and a seven month period whereby the child’s time with the mother would be supervised before eventually moving to a regime of unsupervised time – Where the Court considered the risk of emotional harm being caused to the child by the mother – Where the Court considered the question of risk generally – Orders made in accordance with the submissions made on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – objections to production – subpoenas issued by wife to entities associated with husband’s family business structures – third-party trusts and corporate entities – apparent relevance – legitimate forensic purpose –distinction between documents concerning structure, governance and control and broad financial records directed to valuation – objections upheld.

FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Waiving privilege – Where the mother was previously represented and her lawyers had to withdraw for ethical reasons – Where the mother was unable to produce evidence central to her argument – Whether the mother waived her litigation privilege –Where the mother asserts she did not waive her privilege – Where the mother waived her privilege.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the Applicant sought that the Respondent be ordered, by way of enforcement, to enter into commercial leases – Where the terms of those leases were previously in dispute – Where the Applicant sought that the Respondent pay outstanding rent and electricity despite no formal leases being in place – Where the Applicant sought that the Respondent personally repay monies paid to a Trust by a lessee – Where the Respondent sought the Application be dismissed – Where orders are made for the Applicant and Respondent to enter into commercial leases.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Wastage – Where husband improperly removed funds from the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund as part of concocted transactions in order to defeat wife’s claim – Where wife faces ongoing exposure to risk as a consequence of husband’s actions – Where adjustment in favour of wife found to be just and equitable.

COSTS – Indemnity costs – Where husband found to have colluded with his current partner, concocted transactions and falsified documents in order to defeat wife’s interests – Where vast portions of husband’s evidence was implausible and lacking in credibility – Where husband’s misconduct, non-disclosure and obfuscation caused substantial delays and significantly increased wife’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and for the children to live with him and spend time with the mother – Where the mother seeks sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and for the children to live with her and spend time with the father – Where the mother unilaterally relocated with the children – Where the parties allege family violence occurred – Where the father submits that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where the mother alleges that the father and paternal family are members and/or leaders of a cult – Where the mother alleges coercive control by the father – Where the evidence does not support the mother’s allegations – Where interim orders were made for a change of residence for the children from the mother’s care to the father’s care – Final orders for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ex-tempore reasons – Implied undertaking – Harman undertaking – Application for release from undertaking – Where the applicant father seeks to use most recent single expert family report from family law proceedings in pending Magistrates’ Court family violence order proceedings – Where the first respondent mother seeks to use documents and material from family law proceedings in pending Magistrates’ Court family violence order proceedings – Where it is appropriate that the Magistrate have access to all documents in the current proceedings from a certain date, subject to certain restrictions – Orders made as sought by the mother.