FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks joint decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and for the children to live with the mother and spend time with him – Where the mother seeks sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and for the children to live with her and spend no time with the father – Where the mother unilaterally suspended time between the children and the father – Where the mother alleges that the father perpetrated sexual abuse against the children – Where the allegations of child sexual abuse were investigated by Victoria Police but there was insufficient evidence and no charges were brought against the father –Where Child Protection ended its engagement with the family after Victoria Police concluded its investigation into the father – Where the mother nonetheless asserts the father poses a risk to the children because he sexually abused them and because he perpetrated family violence – Where interim orders were made for the children to spend professionally supervised time with the father but time did not commence – Where finding that the children are enacting a ‘resist and refuse’ dynamic – Where finding that the father does not pose a risk to the children – Where finding that the mother is the children’s primary attachment figure and the children should remain living primarily with her – Where finding that the parties should have joint decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues, the children should live with the mother and spend time with the father graduating over time.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim Hearing – Application for Review – Where the father sought a review of interim orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar – Where the relevant orders provided for the children to spend equal time with the mother and the father, among other things – Where the mother opposed the Application for Review and sought that the interim orders remain extant – Where the father says that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where finding that the mother does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where finding that the children should live with the father and spend five nights per fortnight with the mother pending Final Hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the children lived with the applicant and spent five nights a fortnight with the respondent – where the applicant considers that the respondent has sexually abused the children or has exposed them to behaviour reminiscent of sexual abuse – where the respondent denies any wrongdoing and contends that the applicant presents a risk of psychological and emotional harm to the children by reason of her beliefs and actions – where it was found that the applicant had unshakable beliefs about the respondent sexually abusing the children -where the applicant presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children - where it was ordered that the respondent have sole parental responsibility, there be a moratorium of time the children spend with the applicant, and that the children spend long-term supervised time with the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where two proceedings involving similar factual issues were consolidated – where the two children are half-siblings and live separately in the care of the applicant and the second respondent – where the first respondent’s partner presents a risk of physical or psychological harm, including harm arising from exposure to family violence to both children – where it was found that it was in the children’s best interests that they remain living with the applicant and respondent’s care – where the first respondent was restrained from bringing the children in contact with her partner.

FAMILY LAW – Ex-tempore Reasons – Hearing of wife’s Application in a Proceeding – Where the proceedings were adjourned as a result of the wife’s non-attendance at Court – Where the wife provided a medical certificate to the Court from C Medical Facility in explanation for her non-attendance – Where the wife had filed material the evening prior to the hearing date – Where the husband sought that the wife file an affidavit particularising details of her attendance at C Medical Facility – Where the husband sought opportunity to reply to late-filed material – Orders made as sought by the husband – Proceedings adjourned – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – VALUATION – Whether the husband’s potential adversarial expert should be permitted to inspect a property – Wife directed to facilitate access.

SUBPOENAS – Notice of Objection - Whether the wife should have first access to documents returned on subpoena by medical treaters – First access granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR VARIATION AND DISCHARGE OF INTERIM ORDERS – Where the Wife relies upon spousal maintenance payments in circumstances where she lives with significant disabilities and is not in paid employment – Where the Husband has not complied with interim spousal maintenance orders and “dollar-for-dollar” costs orders made by consent – Where the Wife sought to enforce the interim spousal maintenance orders and “dollar-for-dollar” costs orders and that matter was resolved – Where the Husband seeks variation and discharge of the interim orders – Where the Husband claimed changed financial circumstances – Where the Husband’s evidence about his income and borrowing capacity does not enable a finding that his financial circumstances have changed so as to justify variation or discharge of the spousal maintenance orders – Where the Court is not persuaded that it is just to discharge the “dollar-for-dollar” costs orders – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband was ordered to attend in person at the listing of an interlocutory application and case management event and elected not to do so – Where the husband made no application to attend the listing electronically – Where the parties were put on notice in orders made on 12 May 2026 as to the Court making orders on its own motion pursuant to r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) in the event of a failure or neglect of the parties to comply with orders and/or the Rules – Where the husband has failed to respond to requests for disclosure made by the wife in March 2026 – Where the husband failed to comply with orders requiring him to contribute to the parties’ joint working balance sheet – Consideration of s 95 and s 96 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 1.04 of the Rules – Orders made striking out the husband’s substantive relief and providing for the wife to proceed on an undefended basis.

FAMILY LAW – Property – Urgent listing – Where judgment reserved in final property proceedings – Where the husband gave notice of his intention to sell a business forming part of the asset pool – Where the wife seeks orders permitting her lawyers to liaise with the business broker in relation to the conduct of sale and that sale proceeds be held on trust for the parties – Where the husband submits that the wife’s involvement in the sale process will ‘spook’ potential purchasers – Where the husband adduces no evidence in support of his submissions – Where the orders sought do not contemplate the wife’s direct involvement in the sale process – Orders made as sought by the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the unrepresented father made an oral application for an adjournment on the first morning of the trial – Where that application was dismissed and reasons were provided on 15 June 2026 – Where the Court heard submissions from the parties as to how the final hearing should proceed, in view of the fact that the father had failed to file a trial affidavit in accordance with the trial directions – Where the Court decided to proceed in accordance with rule 10.27(1)(g) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the Court heard submissions from both parties and from the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court considered extensive evidence in relation to family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the father spent time in prison after pleading guilty to serious criminal offences against a subsequent partner in a domestic setting – Where the father failed to show any insight into his conduct – Where the Court came to the conclusion that, in the best interests of the children, there should be no time spent between the children and the father and there should be no communication between the children and the father.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs of a stay application on an indemnity basis and in the alternative, costs calculated pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 – Where the Court is satisfied that there are circumstances, which justify an order for costs – Where the Court is not satisfied that the circumstances justify an order for indemnity costs – Where the Court makes an Order for costs calculated by reference to Schedule 3 of the Rules.

COSTS – Application for costs arising from the Court’s decision to set aside all or part of subpoenas –Where the Court makes an Order for costs calculated by reference to Schedule 3 of the Rules.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the father sought an injunction to protect a potential witness to be called by him at final hearing – Where the evidence filed by the father in support of the application was not compelling – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties reached final orders by consent prior to any party being cross-examined – Where the orders sought included that the parents be restrained from bringing the children into contact with the maternal aunt – Where the Court was ultimately persuaded such an order would give the best chance of success to implementation of the orders sought by consent – Where final orders are made in the best interests of the children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where final property and parenting orders were made – Where the wife seeks her costs on an indemnity basis – Where the husband’s conduct as a litigant during the proceedings caused unnecessary costs to be incurred – Where the husband’s conduct as a litigant caused the completion of the final hearing to be delayed - Where the wife made an offer to resolve the financial proceedings in a sum less than the amount awarded to her – Where the husband’s offer in relation to the competing parenting applications did not represent a genuine compromise – Husband to pay the costs incurred by the wife including counsel fees for a defined period.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an application to re-open the evidence in a substantial way – Where the father opposed the application – Where the father contended that the application lacks adequate justification, would cause significant prejudice to him, and cause unnecessary delay to the resolution of proceedings – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was neutral on the application – Where the Court adopted the position of the father – Where the application is dismissed and the question of costs will be determined upon the proper application being filed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – parenting and property proceedings – disclosure failures – non-compliance with orders – subpoena process – whether circumstances justified costs order – standard and indemnity costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a decree of nullity is sought – Respondent husband remarried prior to his previous divorce taking effect – Marriage is void.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the adult son of the parties (“the interested person”) filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking a stay of proceedings pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) between the legal personal representatives of his late father’s estate and his mother, that the s 79 trial be vacated and other relief, pending determination of his applications for special leave to the High Court of Australia – Where the applications for special leave are prima facie incompetent – Consideration of s 55 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia 2021 (Cth) and s 73 of the Constitution – Where the prospects of special leave cannot be regarded as substantial – Where the interested person’s submission that a failure to make orders as sought will render his applications for special leave nugatory is not accepted – Where the balance of convenience favours the parties to the s 79 proceedings – Application in a Proceeding dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Whether the matter should proceed without hearing from the wife – Consideration of requirements of disclosure and the impacts on the interests of justice – Application heard on its merits – Whether the wife should receive an interim property distribution – Where the parties have substantial assets – Where the wife is the beneficiary of a testamentary trust – Consideration of the terms of the testamentary trust – Where it is appropriate to make an interim property distribution.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – interlocutory application by the husband for orders in respect of six parcels of real estate – wife is currently undergoing treatment for a highly aggressive form of cancer – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Recognition of foreign orders – Where orders made in the United States of America conflict with earlier property settlement orders made in Australia – Where the applicant is now deceased – Whether the foreign judgment is recognised at common law – Where the foreign judgment is prima facie entitled to enforcement in Australia – Whether any of the available defences to enforcement of the foreign judgment are established – Where enforcement of the foreign judgment is refused because it would contravene public policy.

FAMILY LAW – SECURITY FOR COSTS – property settlement proceedings – where the wife resides in Australia – where the husband resides in Country B – where the parties jointly own the matrimonial property in Melbourne – where the wife filed an application seeking security for costs close to the final hearing – where husband has title of two properties in Country B that had not been disclosed – where the husband’s financial circumstances are opaque and somewhat unknown – where the Court considers that the general rule in s 114UB be set aside – where the Court orders security for costs in the sum of $40,000 – costs of the application reserved.

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 – PARENTING – Final Hearing – Child aged 10 years old – Where the child has lived in the primary care of the paternal grandparents since 2019 – Where the father has disengaged in the proceedings and resides in China – Where the mother resides in Sydney – Lack of trust between the parties – Where the child has been cared for by a combination of the paternal family, the maternal family and the mother – Where the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the child’s care arrangements – Consideration of the child’s stability with the paternal grandparents in Adelaide – Where each party seeks primary care of the child – Where the mother has proposed relocating to Adelaide – Consideration of the child’s connection to her Chinese heritage – Consideration of best interests – Orders made for the child to remain in the paternal grandparents primary care – Orders made largely as promoted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – interim hearing – where both parties previously consented to reconsideration of final orders – where the parties have three children – where the orders sought only concern the youngest child – where the father seeks a week-about arrangement – where the mother seeks supervised time – where there is serious denigration of the mother by the father – where father denigrates the mother to the child via text messages – where there is incontrovertible evidence of denigration – where the court is unable to make any findings on an interim hearing – where the court has to weigh the benefit of the relationship between the child and the father with the development and psychological needs of the child – where the court finds there is a serious risk of the psychological and developmental needs of the child being exposed to severe parental conflict – where the court orders supervised time – where the court orders both parents to enrol in different courses – where the matter remains listed for a directions hearing in November.

FAMILY LAW – Final Parenting – where multiple risk factors including family violence, substance abuse, father’s criminality and impulsivity, where both parties have mental health diagnoses – where father continues to use medicinal marijuana - where mother alleges child exposed to family violence and was shaken as a baby – where mother a vulnerable person - where restraints made as to the conduct of both parties – where section 64D(2) order made - order for identification contact only. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – one child (now aged 12) – high conflict between parents – each allege family violence by the other but neither asserts it is unsafe for child to spend time with the other – mother relocated with child from Queensland to Victoria in February 2023, without father’s knowledge – each parent seeks child live with them (mother in Victoria, father in Queensland) and spend time with the other parent – evaluation of proposals – order for joint decision-making as agreed – order for child to live with mother and to spend time with father found to be in child’s best interests, notwithstanding mother’s past failure to support child’s relationship with father – order for parents to accompany child when travelling interstate if child refuses to travel unaccompanied, to support time with father – consideration of other orders sought by parties, some ultimately agreed and some in dispute.

FAMILY LAW – SURROGACY – Where the child is born through commercial surrogacy – Where the parents entered into the surrogacy agreement overseas – Where the child was artificially conceived – Where the father provided the genetic material for the child to be conceived – Where the child is an Australian citizen – PARENTING – Where there is a high conflict co-parenting relationship – Where there are some safety risks for the child in the father’s household – Where it is not in the child’s best interest to live in an equal time arrangement with each parent – Where the mother’s mental health is stable – Where the mother displays greater insight into the child’s needs – Where the father has provided misleading information about his mental health – Where the father has failed in his duty of disclosure – Where it is in the best interest of the child to live in the primary care of the mother – Where the child benefits from his relationship with the father – Where it is in the bests interests of the child to spend regular time with the father, including overnight time– DECISION MAKING – RESTRAINTS – PASSPORTS AND OVERSEAS TRAVEL.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the husband borrowed money from his parents to purchase a property – where the husband was unable to discharge the onus of establishing the quantum of the debt – where the wife should not be liable for the debt where it is vague, uncertain or unlikely to be enforced – where the wife was primarily responsible for the care of the child – where the wife will retain the former matrimonial home.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Interim Hearing – Where the wife seeks an order for periodic spousal maintenance – Where the wife considers her health conditions hinder her ability to support herself adequately – Where the husband contends that the wife is overstating her health conditions – Consideration of s 75(2) factors in justifying an order for periodic spousal maintenance –Where the wife seeks a “dollar for dollar” order in respect of her legal costs – Where the husband opposes the wife's application for litigation funding – Consideration of factors set out in s 114UB(3) – Orders for the husband to pay to the wife periodic spousal maintenance – Costs orders made for “dollar for dollar” litigation funding in favour of the wife – Interim applications dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother alleges and the father denies historical family violence – Conflict did not rise to the level of family violence – Father not a risk of harm – Children to spend gradually increased time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – interlocutory property – dispute regarding valuation – alleged nondisclosure – delay in preparation of expert report – costs sought – where neither parties’ proposal in the interests of justice – proceeding not ready for trial – concerns raised regarding both parties’ conduct throughout course of proceeding– no finding as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – financial and non-financial contributions – just and equitable – global approach – tax debt – beneficiary of a trust – future financial needs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – breach of disclosure obligation by husband – value of UK company – more arduous contributions by wife due to family violence – one child with special needs.  

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – husband and wife self-represented – section 102NA order prohibited cross-examination by either – husband relocated to Country B – family violence including choking means increased risk of lethality – sole parental responsibility to the wife – children live with the wife – children to have no contact or communication with the husband save that husband permitted to send cards and gifts to children – wife permitted to travel with children out of Australia – removal of watchlist order. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – matrimonial home is only significant asset in Australia – majority of equity in mortgage transferred to Country B by husband along with his superannuation – wife to receive 100 per cent of the pool due to her post-separation contributions, for her future needs and because of the transfer of the mortgage funds under section 75(2)(o) of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – parenting – notice of objection – set aside.  

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – partial consent orders - two remaining narrow issues of overseas travel and passport – mother pressed application relating to a security bond for the father in respect of overseas travel and adult supervision for the child whilst overseas with the father - no reasonably arguable case to sustain the proposition that there should be a bond or a prescriptive order for adult supervision -  application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - application filed by the father sought a change of primacy and for supervised time with the mother - application for a change of primacy, and for supervised time stood over.   

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – partial consent orders – major long-term decision making – an unacceptable risk of developmental, psychological, and emotional harm – limited capacity to engage in child focucsed communications – all earlier interim parenting orders vacated – mother granted sole parental responsibility – spend time with father.   

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – one child, aged 12 – child with high needs – high parental conflict – breakdown of the father’s parental relationship with the child exacerbated by both parents – consideration of the child’s firm views and her ongoing need for high level support – time with the father as per her wishes – best interests outcome. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the mother makes allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against her herself historically and the child currently - Absence of stand out or obvious incidents of violence or abuse and key aspects of mother’s evidence unreliable – Nevertheless, father has behaved in at least odd, or at worst frightening, behaviour which has had a cumulative effect on both the mother and child - Father lacks insight into the effect of his behaviour on the mother and child - Where father diagnosed with rare mental health condition – Where the only available finding on the evidence is that supervision is the only arrangement that would support the safety of the child in the care of the father at this time.

CHILD SUPPORT – Application for leave to commence proceedings against the Child Support Registrar – leave refused.

FAMILY LAW – parenting only – family violence – where the father denies all accusations of family violence - where the father has not spent time with the children since December 2021 - where the children are fearful of the father – where the father shows no insight into the feelings of the children – mother seeks sole decision making and no time between the children and the father.

FAMILY LAW – parenting – Evatt matter – two day final contested hearing listed before me – where the Mother and Father were represented by solicitors and counsel – where the Father did not attend court – where no contact could be made to the Father – where counsel for the Father was unable to obtain instructions – where the matter proceeded undefended – where there is significant allegations of family violence – where there is significant drug abuse – where the orders made were in line with the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Mother – child live with Mother – child spend no time or communicate with the Father.   

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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.