FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the parties are in dispute of the interpretation of a final order – where there is evidence of family violence – where the wife requires access to the property for the purposes of arranging work to be carried out in order to sell the property – where the order should be varied to reflect the intention of the Court

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – where an application for divorce was filed by the Husband in Australia – where the Wife contends Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – where the Wife adduces no expert evidence of Country D law – where the Wife invoked this Court’s jurisdiction for financial relief – where the parties were found to been living separately and apart – where the Husband’s application for divorce is granted

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Whether contraventions proven – whether reasonable excuse established.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs application by husband – costs application by subpoena objector.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the parties are engaged in a second tranche of litigation – where the mother seeks the child have no time with the father unless agreed in writing – where the father seeks that time gradually progress to unsupervised time two nights per fortnight and half school holidays – where the child has made allegations of violence upon him by the father – where no finding as to family violence is sought – where the child steadfastly refuses to spend time with the father – where the child assails the mother prior to and in the wake of time with the father – where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer impractically view family therapy as the sole remedy or “magic wand” for the re-establishment of the relationship –where risk of harm is inherent in both proposals – where such risks are intricately weighed – where the mother has damaged the relationship (be it deliberately or inadvertently) to such an extent that no orders as to time with the father would be safe for the child – where the mother is an unimpressive witness – where the father has not prioritised the relationship or engaged fulsomely with family therapy – where the parties are diametrically opposed – mother granted sole decision-making responsibility with a requirement to consult with the father and orders made for no time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – relocation – young child – mother seeks to move from Melbourne to Sydney with the child – father seeks that the child remains living in Melbourne and time progress to an equal shared care arrangement – orders made providing for child to live in Sydney with the mother

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – application for final parenting orders – child aged 10 – child diagnosed with anxiety – where the parties each seek orders for the father to spend time with the child on a gradual increasing basis – where the mother seeks sole decision making responsibility – where the father seeks equally shared decision making responsibility – consideration of the best interests of the child under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – final parenting orders made.

FAMILY LAW – Property proceedings – application for dismissal of Initiating Applicant for non-disclosure of documents, default of compliance with Court orders, and failure to prosecute the application with due diligence – Initiating Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – Property settlement proceedings – 20 year relationship – complex entities – add-back arguments – just and equitable outcome.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Extension of time – declaration of parentage – declaration that the Respondent should be assessed in respect of the costs of the child.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for the maternal grandmother to spend time with the child – best interests of the child – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the father seeks the current equal time arrangement continue and the mother seeks a reduction in such time – where the parties cannot agree as to the interpretation of simple and concise orders of this court – where a significant feature of the matter is the child’s wishes – where the child consistently expresses a wish for an equal time arrangement to third parties –where the child is acutely aware of the parental conflict – where the father has consciously acted to undermine and denigrate the mother to third parties and the child – where the father concedes to involving the child in discussions about the proceedings and his own preferences for time - where the mother has exhibited reflective capacity in relation to two emotionally charged incidents – where the father’s capacity for reflection is limited to concessions made during cross-examination – where neither party is an impressive witness – where the risk of harm to the child arises from his exposure to the parties’ highly conflictual and toxic parenting relationship - where both parties lack insight - where the father’s parenting deficits are such that he would not be able to safely support the mother’s proposal for a reduction in time if made – orders made for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with the parties in an equal time arrangement.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application in a proceeding – application to reopen evidence of final hearing – application dismissed.  

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – final orders – child live with mother – mother have sole decision making relating to health and education – father spend each alternate Saturday with child – further time between father and child including overnight time as agreed between parties – where the father changes his position during proceedings – father to enrol in a parenting program 

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE- dispensing with the need to comply with the Notice to Produce under r 1.31 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim hearing – partial property settlement – spousal maintenance – sale of property – orders made, inter alia, for partial property settlement and spousal maintenance.

FAMILY LAW –  recovery order arising from after hours service – subsequent attempt to comply with order for return of child made before recovery order – subsequent order that recovery order “lie in the registry” – subsequent advise child returned – recovery order vacated

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the subject child is 7 years of age – Where the child has spent supervised time with the father for a period of two years – Where both parties have unilaterally taken the child overseas post separation - Where there are significant allegations of family violence perpetrated against the mother and the child by the father –Where the mother seeks orders that the child spend no time with the father - Where the father alleges that the mother’s partner has sexually abused the child – Where despite the father’s allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by the mother’s new partner he seeks that the child live with the parties on an equal shared care arrangement – Where the Father alleges the mother has fabricated allegations to alienate the child from him - Where the father relies on the mother allowing unsupervised time between him and the child post separation as the basis of the orders sought by him – Findings made that the father perpetrated family violence including coercive and controlling behaviours upon the mother and the child – Finding made that the father cannot positively support a relationship between the child and the mother – Finding that the parties’ parenting relationship is reflective of a dynamic arising from the father’s controlling family violence - Finding that the family violence perpetrated by the father is a contradiction to an order for equal shared parental responsibility - Finding that the culmination of risks posed by the father cannot be sufficiently ameliorated by supervision or otherwise – Orders made that the child spend no time with the father.  

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Costs – Parenting – Where it was alleged the father contravened by overholding the child following periods of time spending – Where the father admitted the breaches at the commencement of Trial but maintained he had a reasonable excuse – Where after giving evidence at Trial, the father plead guilty to each count without reasonable excuse – Father to enter into a Bond – Orders for costs. 

FAMILY LAW – Harman and/or implied obligation – are special circumstances required the documents in another court – whether special circumstances in this application – very late application – whether costs should be ordered – special circumstances found – applicant released from implied obligation

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application after matter not reached – stood over till final hearing date

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – two male children aged 11 and 9 – second round of parenting proceedings – where the parties consented to final orders in December 2018 – where the parties had difficulty implementing the final orders – where the parties’ communication was unproductive – where the two boys where being dragged into the conflict by both parents – where the relationship between the father and the children began to break down in part due to disclosures of physical abuse in the father’s care by the children – where the children became resistant to spending time and communicating with the father – where the children are now estranged from the father and fearful of him – where the Court considers there would be an emotional or psychological risk to the children if they were required to spend time with the father – best interests of the children.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – determined on the papers – where property proceeded on an undefended basis due to husband’s non-compliance – where the wife seeks indemnity costs – where it is found that the husband’s conduct throughout the proceedings justifies the making of a costs order against him – where the wife failed to produce costs agreements in support of her claim as required under Rule 12.13 – where the wife failed to particularise costs incurred by her – where some amounts claimed by the wife appeared to relate to proceedings in another jurisdiction – exceptional circumstances not established – costs ordered in a specific amount.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - Unacceptable Risk – Capacity of the parents – Child with ASD diagnosis – Allegations of physical violence by the father to the child – Allegations of alienation of the child from the father – Father seeks change of primary care to him – Mother seeks no time or communication for the child with the father – Order for child to continue to live in the primary care of the mother – Order for child to continue time-with relationship with the father.

BANKRUPTCY – VESTING ORDER AS TO DISCLAIMED PROPERTY – Where a bankrupt was the registered proprietor of Torrens system land – Where the Trustee disclaimed the property – Where the State of Victoria sought a vesting order – Where the Court considered it was just and equitable for the vesting of the property in the State of Victoria – Orders made

FAIR WORK – general protections application lodged one day after proscribed time – where short delay due to representative error - no particular prejudice to the respondent - at least the basis of a claim articulated – extension of time granted

MIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of a summary dismissal decision made by a Registrar – where an application for review of the delegate’s decision was lodged out of time and therefore Tribunal lacked jurisdiction – no jurisdictional error identified - application cannot succeed and is dismissed with costs

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – Application for Extension of Time – Delay of 5,184 days – No arguable jurisdictional error on proposed grounds – Extension of Time refused – Application for judicial review dismissed with costs

MIGRATION – Protection (subclass 866) visa – Application for review of Registrar’s dismissal of reinstatement application – Extension of time sought – Consideration of length of time and reasons for delay in filing review application – Consideration of reinstatement application –  Reasons for non-attendance at court leading to dismissal of substantive application wholly inadequate – evidence of applicant unreliable – Substantive application raised no arguable grounds – Extension of time refused  – Application for review dismissed with costs

BANKRUPTCY – Interlocutory Application – Application to set aside sequestration order – Application to recuse – Procedural fairness – Actual or apprehended bias – Application dismissed  

FAIR WORK – alleged breach of contract – alleged underpayments and unlawful deductions in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) with cross claim to rectify alleged overpayment – where the Applicant’s remuneration was reduced following the First Respondent’s loss of a significant contract and, subsequently, unilateral deductions were made.

GENERAL PROTECTIONS – various adverse actions including dismissal taken in alleged contravention of s.340 of the Act – where Applicant had complained about remuneration and was summarily dismissed for alleged serious misconduct in respect of communications with clients. 

MIGRATION – Extension of time in which to commence s 476 Migration Act review – foreshadowed challenge to rationally based credit findings of the Tribunal cannot succeed – not in the interests of justice to extend time – application to do so dismissed

CONSTITUTION – Exercise of delegated power by Registrar – nature of de novo review

MIGRATION – Registrar’s decision affirmed and review dismissed as no arguable case for extension of time

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Application for judicial review – Whether wrong legal test applied – Correct criteria applied – Whether unreasonable finding of effective state protection – Finding of effective state protection open on country information - Decision not legally unreasonable – No jurisdictional error found – Application for judicial review dismissed – Costs ordered.

MIGRATION – Decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa – where three Tribunal hearings held – whether failure by Tribunal to consider or engage with relevant evidence – jurisdictional error established – writs issued

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) – whether the IAA’s decision was legally unreasonable –whether the IAA failed to consider relevant considerations or claims – application dismissed

BANKRUPTCY – Interlocutory Application – Ex tempore judgment – Application dismissed

MIGRATION – application for an extension of time – decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority – protection visa – whether the underlying application for judicial review has merit – whether the Authority’s decision was unreasonable – underlying application has limited prospects of success – extension of time refused. 

MIGRATION – Safe Haven Enterprise Visa – Immigration Assessment Authority – one ground of judicial review – unparticularised ground – sole ground of review has no merit – application dismissed with costs. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for default judgment pursuant to r 13.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (“2025 Rules”) – Where the applicant filed its application before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (“2021 Rules”) were in force – Where the 2025 Rules are found to be the applicable legislation – Where the 2021 Rules are substantially the same as the 2025 Rules with regard to default judgment.

FAIR WORK – Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”) – Where the respondent has failed to pay contractual wages contrary to s 323(1) of the FW Act – Where the respondent has failed to pay annual leave on termination of employment contrary to s 90 and subsequently s 44 of the FW Act – Where the respondent has failed to issue a notice of termination or payment in lieu of that notice, contrary to s 117 and subsequently s 44 of the FW Act – Accessorial liability – Declaration considered appropriate where employer company in liquidation and respondent appears to have embarked on a Phoenix-style venture with a new company – Public interest to alert current and potential employees to risk associated with such employment. 

MIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of a summary dismissal decision made by a registrar – whether the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction – consideration of whether notification of decision to refuse the applicant’s visa satisfied the requirements of s.66(2)(d)(ii) – notification deemed to be valid – application dismissed with costs. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant failed to appear at a listing before the Court relating to his judicial review application – application dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). 

FAIR WORK – Application for injunctive and other relief related to a Fair Work Act claim – Injunction preserving status quo sought – Injunctive relief sought too broad - Suppression order sought – Test for suppression order not satisfied – Relief preserving legal rights sought – Inappropriate to make orders - Discovery order sought – Documents sought too vague – Urgent directions and hearing sought - Circumstances do not warrant expedited hearing - Application for relief dismissed. 

MIGRATION – Ex Tempore – Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Two grounds of judicial review decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – Whether Tribunal erred in finding the applicant did not meet the criteria under ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) –  No jurisdictional error established – Application dismissed. 

FAIR WORK – multiple contraventions of civil remedy provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – respondents did not participate in proceedings – default judgment – determination of pecuniary penalties, interest and costs following default judgment – declarations and orders made.

MIGRATION – Ex Tempore –  Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection (Class XA) visa  – Five grounds of judicial review – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider vital integers of the applicant's case – Whether the tribunal did not comply with its procedural fairness guidelines – Whether the Tribunal relied on incorrect information – Whether the Tribunal failed to ask relevant questions – whether the applicant can appeal to the Federal Court – Grounds of judicial review have no merit – Application dismissed with costs.

MIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of a summary dismissal decision made by a Registrar – whether the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction – consideration of whether notification of decision to refuse the applicant’s visa satisfied the requirements of s.66(2)(d)(ii) – notification deemed to be valid – whether denial of procedural fairness because not invited to a hearing – no jurisdictional error established, application is dismissed with costs. 

MIGRATION – judicial review – extension of time application – lengthy delay – whether satisfactory explanation for delay – merits of underlying application – extension of time refused.

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Review Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction because applicant failed to pay prescribed fee within prescribed period – whether error by Tribunal.

MIGRATION – Applicant applied twice to Tribunal in relation to delegate’s visa decision – Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review repeat application – application for extension in which to bring application for review – not in interests of justice to extend time – new evidence not admissible.

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – genuine temporary entrant criterion – whether the Tribunal failed to lawfully apply cl 600.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to give proper weight to the applicant’s evidence – whether the Tribunal made an irrational or illogical finding – whether the Tribunal failed to consider all relevant matters or evidence – whether the Tribunal considered irrelevant matters or evidence – whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing – whether the Tribunal was biased or acted in bad faith – whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction – whether the Tribunal unreasonably exercised a discretionary power – whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.