Judgments

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where solicitor acted for husband in long-running enforcement proceedings – Where solicitor facilitated breaches of court orders by husband – Where solicitor purported to act for separately represented second respondent as well as husband in impugned transactions – Where in so doing, solicitor facilitated breaches of court orders by second respondent – Referral to Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING – Where the Father alleges that, since the making of the final orders on 5 September 2025, the Mother has not complied with the “spend time” orders as sought by her – Where the Mother’s case was that she had not contravened the orders or, in the alternative, that she had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the orders – Where children (aged 14 and 10) have now not spent time with the Father in accordance with orders since March 2025 – Where Court is satisfied the Mother intentionally failed to comply with the relevant orders – Where no reasonable excuse established – Where Mother’s evidence as to the children’s reluctance to spend time with the Father is insufficiently particularised – Where the Mother gave evidence that she relies upon the views of the older child in relation to whether that child and the younger child should be made available for time with the Father – Where declaration made that the Mother contravened the orders without reasonable excuse – Where the Mother is required to enter into a two-year bond without surety or security on condition that she complies with the orders in respect of the 10 year old child –Where the Court is not satisfied that make-up time is in the children’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for interim parenting orders made at the conclusion of the final hearing – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek to cease all time and communication between the father and the children pending the making of final orders – Order made providing for the older child to spend time with the father in accordance with the child’s wishes – Order made reducing the time spent between the father and the younger child from a week about arrangement to three nights per fortnight.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where final property adjustment orders in force – Where parties disagree about the interpretation of the orders – Where the wife’s solicitors hold funds pending distribution of them to parties – Where parties disagree about payments to be made from fund.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – Interim parenting orders – Where the mother seeks to suspend the father’s time and relocate the children’s primary residence from Adelaide to Town B – Where the mother alleges the children are at risk of both physical abuse together with psychological and/or emotional abuse – Where the children have significant and high needs – Where ICL supports the order sought by the mother – Where the Court cannot exclude the possibility that the children have suffered harm – Where the Court is satisfied that it is presently in the children’s best interests to live with the mother and relocate on an interim basis – Orders made for the children to spend supervised time with the father each alternate weekend – Supervision considered suitably protective against the risk of harm the father poses.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing regarding a child of Aboriginal descent – Where the child’s mother is Aboriginal and does not currently have a relationship with the child – Where the child presently lives with the paternal grandmother and where this arrangement is to continue – Where the father currently spends limited time with the child supervised by the paternal grandmother – Where the paternal grandmother is highly critical of the mother and her family – Where the mother and the father pose some risks, of varying degrees and natures, in spending time with the child but which the court finds can be ameliorated – Orders made for the father to spend time with the child on a graduating basis and subject to the completion of named parenting courses – Orders made for the mother to re-establish a relationship with the child, first at a contact centre, and thereafter with the supervision of the mother’s support worker – Orders made for the paternal grandmother to make major long-term decisions for the child subject to a process of consultation – Where a relationship with the mother provides the child with the best opportunity to learn about and experience her Aboriginal culture and identity.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Live with – Where the mother sought for the child to live with her – Where the father sought the mother’s application be dismissed – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought the child remain living with the father – Where the Court declines to change the living arrangements of the child.

PARENTING – Spend time with – Where the mother sought the father spend four nights per fortnight with the child – Where the father sought the child’s current time with the mother be extended from two to four nights per fortnight – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought for the mother to spend five nights per fortnight with the child –Where the Court varied the current interim orders such that the mother spend four nights per fortnight with the child. 

PARENTING – International travel – Where the father sought orders to obtain a passport for the child – Where the father sought orders to enable him to travel internationally with the child at an undefined time in the future – Where the mother opposed such travel on the basis that the father presents a risk of unilateral international relocation – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer suggested that the matter would be more appropriately dealt with at a final hearing – Where the Court declined to make an order permitting international travel or for the child to obtain a passport in circumstances where the father did not propose any specific travel.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Family Violence – Where the child has not spent time with the father since September 2024 – Where the mother asserts that the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the Court finds that the father does not represent an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – No matters of principle.

PARENTING – Where the mother is the unchallenged residential parent – Consideration of the impact on the mother and her parenting if the Court makes an order for extended time between the child and her father.

PARENTING – Consideration of conditions applicable to overseas travel – Where the mother wishes to expose the child to her culture and maternal family – Where the mother’s country of origin is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto husband purports to seek summary judgment in his favour as against the de facto wife – Where the de facto husband’s contention that the determination of the date of the termination of the relationship is “dispositive” of the proceeding is not accepted – Where the de facto husband does not establish that the de facto wife has no reasonable prospects of success should her evidence be accepted at its highest – Application for summary dismissal refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Where the de facto husband made an oral application for the listing of a separate issues hearing pursuant to r 10.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) for a s 90RD declaration as to the date of termination of the de facto relationship – Where that factual issue is not narrow, engaging with a myriad of overlapping issues as to questions of fact and law for the purposes of an application for leave, if necessary, pursuant to s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and as to any substantive Pt VIIIAB relief – Where the same witnesses will be called to give the same evidence at both possible hearings on questions of issues to be separately tried – Where the de facto husband has not established that the hearing of the separate issues trial would generate a significant saving of costs or lead to an earlier disposal of the proceeding contrary to the overriding purpose of the Act and the Rules – Where the superficial attraction of the application for a separate trial produces consequential complications – Oral application for a separate issues hearing dismissed – Order made for any declaration sought pursuant to s 90RD of the Act or indulgence of leave pursuant to s 44(6) of the Act to be determined at a final hearing.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Where the de facto wife sought further procedural orders advancing ch 7 single expert evidence – Some orders made and others refused.
 

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Application for return of children to Japan – Determination of habitual residence – Children residing in Japan for extended period – Ambiguous parental intention – Integration into Japanese family, educational and social environment – Habitual residence established in Japan – No regulatory exceptions made out – Return order made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Undefended hearing – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought final orders be made in the absence of the Mother – Where there is a history of non-attendance and non-compliance by the Mother – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders by consent for the Father to have sole decision making responsibility, for the child to live with him, for the Father to be able to obtain an Australian passport for the child without the consent of the Mother, and for the Father to be able to travel internationally with the child without the consent of the Mother – Where the Court made final orders by agreement as between the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer and in the absence of the Mother.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks injunctive orders for the preservation of property – Where the husband disposed of a luxury motor vehicle and remitted the proceeds of sale overseas – Where the wife contends the husband was the legal and beneficial owner of the motor vehicle – Where the husband contends the motor vehicle was owned by a company and the sale proceeds were remitted in payment of a liability of the company to a third party within the ordinary course of business – Where the husband had previously disclosed in court documents under oath that he was the legal owner of the motor vehicle – Where the husband failed to provide financial records of the company proving its ownership of the motor vehicle – Where it is not established that the company had a pre-existing liability owed to the third party at least in the amount of the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle – Where it is not established that the proceeds of sale are not within the husband’s possession or control – Order made directing the husband to cause the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle to be paid into the wife’s solicitor’s trust account pending further order.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought a costs order on an indemnity basis following an Application – Enforcement in which the husband was unsuccessful – Where the husband conceded that a costs order should be made but contended that it should be on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed – Where the circumstances are not exceptional such as to warrant an indemnity costs order – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

COSTS – Where the wife seeks the second respondent pay her costs on an indemnity basis of an Application in a Proceeding that resulted in consent orders – Where the second respondent opposed the making of a costs order and contended that each party should bear their own costs – Where the Court is not satisfied there are circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that each party pay their own costs – No order for costs – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where parenting orders were made by consent in 2020 – Where the mother unilaterally removed the children from the father’s care – Where the children expressed a wish to live with the mother – Where the Court is satisfied the children’s views are likely influenced by pressure and parental conflict – Where the parents have demonstrated little capacity to communicate directly – Sole decision‑making responsibility for education and health granted to the father – Children to live with the father and spend time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Where the wife seeks to amend previous orders for security – Where leave is not required for substantive proceedings – Where property proceedings were finalised in a foreign court – Where the husband holds superannuation in Australia – Whether wife has complied with orders of foreign court to make to the husband – Contentions over assessment of quantum of security – Whether costs award in Australia would be enforceable in foreign court – Where previous orders are unchanged save as to period to make payment.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife makes an application for costs in substantive property proceedings – Where the husband contends his financial circumstances militate against any costs order being made – Where the husband’s conduct of the proceedings was delinquent – Where the husband did not accept the wife’s offer of settlement before the trial – Orders made – Husband to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the financial cause in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife seeks to join third parties, including individuals and corporate entities – Where the putative respondents opposed the joinder – Where the wife contends that the putative respondents hold interests in companies the subject of the proceedings – Where the Court is satisfied that the rights of the putative respondents may be directly affected by the orders sought – Orders made for joinder of the putative respondents.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the husband seeks to join the wife’s parents to the proceedings in relation to properties held in their names – Where the husband seeks declaratory relief only and no orders which would affect the ownership of those properties – Where the Court is not satisfied that they are necessary parties and consequently there is no basis for their joinder – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Applicant seeks that the Respondent pay the costs of enforcement proceedings and the costs application – Where the Respondent opposes the making of any costs order – Where there is a significant litigation history between the parties including two final hearings and two enforcement proceedings – Where s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) considered – Where the Applicant is the primary carer of the parties’ four children but is in a comfortable financial position – Where the Respondent submits he is under significant financial pressure but his circumstances have been within his control – Where the Respondent’s lack of disclosure during the enforcement proceedings caused the Applicant to incur costs – Where other aspects of the Respondent’s conduct caused the Applicant to incur unnecessary legal costs – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Where certain orders were made by consent during the enforcement proceedings – Where there is no evidence of attempts to settle the costs application – Where order made that the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs in respect of the enforcement proceedings in a fixed sum which reflects the relevant scales – Where order made that the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the costs application in a fixed sum which is more than the scales but less than on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay her a sum of $300,000 by way of interim or partial property distribution – Where neither party made any attempt to identify the assets available for distribution or address the Court about the parameters of the dispute between the parties.

PROPERTY – Where the husband seeks an order pursuant to s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for litigation funding – Where the husband provides insufficient evidence to the Court to enable the Court to determine whether there are circumstances that justify it making an order.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SINGLE EXPERT – Where the Court makes orders pursuant to Rule 7.19 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 to avoid any further delay with respect to the conclusion of the litigation.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the husband and wife both seek sole decision making responsibility for major long term issues for their daughter – Where the husband seeks a change of the child’s residence from Melbourne to Hobart when the child has lived with her mother in Melbourne since July 2022 – Orders made for the wife to have sole responsibility for long term decision making, subject to notification to the husband, for the child to remain living in Melbourne with the wife and to spend time with the husband.
 

PROPERTY – Where parties in dispute about the assets and liabilities comprising the asset pool for division, their respective contributions and future needs – Where both parties allege the other has failed to comply with disclosure obligations and have deliberately concealed assets – Where the husband seeks add-backs inconsistent with legislative amendments and a mathematical approach to the exercise of discretion – Where it is apparent the husband has extensively relied on generative AI to produce prolix and lengthy documents – Orders made for a roughly equal division of the asset pools as determined. 

SPOUSAL MAITAINENCE – Where the husband seeks spousal maintenance – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing with respect to pressing parenting issues pending further interim hearing – Where the impending holiday period created some urgency – Where the matter has been set down for a further interim hearing – Orders made for the children to spend time with the mother in circumstances of agreement between the parents – Orders made commencing a process of therapeutic intervention between the mother and one of the children.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the parties each apply to enforce a consent superannuation splitting order made more than two years ago – Where the parties are the trustees and sole members of their self-managed superannuation fund – Consideration of the utility of the Court making a second order pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration as to whether the operative time of a superannuation splitting order is a substantive order or a machinery order – Where enforcement is not an opportunity to revisit the substance of an order sought to be enforced – Where no application has been made to vary the order sought to be enforced or stay its operation – Where the evidence of the parties in support of their competing claims for enforcement was deficient – Consideration of matters that inform the exercise of discretion to enforce orders – Applications for enforcement of each of the husband and the wife dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the mother seeks sole decision-making responsibility for all major long term issues for the child – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer, supported by the father, seeks for the father to have sole decision-making responsibility for all major long term issues for the child – Where the mother seeks for the child to spend time with the father in accordance with the child’s wishes – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer, supported by the father, seeks for the child to live with the father and there be a moratorium on the child’s time with the mother – Where there are final orders by consent for the child’s brother to live with the mother and spend time with the father in accordance with the brother’s wishes – Where the mother is unable to cooperate with the father or support his relationship with the child – The father to have sole decision-making responsibility – The child to live with the father and live with the mother equally – Where it is in the child’s best interests to promote his relationship with both parents and his brother.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother sought a harmful proceedings order against the father – Where the father is a self-represented litigant – Where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child and/or the mother would suffer harm if the father instituted further proceedings – Where the father has filed eleven separate interlocutory applications in the proceedings – Where there is a long history of litigation – Order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prohibiting the father from instituting proceedings under the Act.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Subpoena Objection – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed a subpoena to the O Health District for updating material in relation to the parents and children's health records – Where the Respondent filed a Notice of Objection to the subpoena raising eight (8) grounds of objection which broadly amount to an assertion of a lack of legitimate forensic purpose and the material falls within a protected confidences pursuant to s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the Court heard oral submissions from the parties – Where the Court inspected the material pursuant to s 102BD(5) of the Act – Where the Court found that the material produced was relevant and did not warrant any direction being made pursuant to s102BD of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay application – Where the mother sought a stay of final parenting orders – Where the mother had filed a Notice of Appeal in respect of those final parenting orders – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the mother’s stay application – Where a stay of the final parenting orders would not be in the child’s best interests – Where the mother’s pending appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – applications for costs by the De Facto Husband and the paternal grandmother following a determination of parenting and financial proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Transcripts – where mother makes an oral application for provision of transcripts –where parties and their legal representatives permitted to view those transcripts already held by the Court in the Subpoena Registry – where application is otherwise dismissed.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – s102NA – where final hearing is part heard following 17 days of hearing with a further 5 days estimated – where father’s s102NA practitioners filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act without seeking leave to do so – where father has successfully found new legal representation under the s102NA Scheme – where those solicitors have filed a Notice of Address for Service – where father intends to continue to retain the same barrister for trial – leave granted.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – s102NA – where mother’s s102NA practitioners also filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act without seeking leave to do so – where mother says relationship has broken down – where mother does not intend to retain the same Counsel – practitioners granted leave to withdraw – where mother tells the Court she has engaged with new solicitors and Senior Counsel – where those practitioners have not filed a Notice of Address for Service – where the s102NA Scheme at Victoria Legal Aid do not confirm the mother’s new legal representation as described by her– where mother advised of the risks of continuing without legal representation including that she cannot personally cross-examine the father.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where litigation funding by way of partial property settlement is sought by the wife – Where the wife seeks the sale of the former matrimonial home – Where neither the husband nor the wife seek to retain the former matrimonial home at trial – Where the husband has been living in the former matrimonial home since separation without paying rent – Where the wife has been paying rent since separation – Where the hearing date was adjourned at no fault of the wife but at least in part the fault of the husband – Where the order sought does not exceed the wife’s entitlement to property settlement – Where it is just and equitable to make an order for a partial property settlement – Where the wife is not granted sole use and occupation of the former matrimonial home pending sale.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the sixth respondent, who is the adult child of the husband and wife, seeks an order removing his current litigation guardian and appointing his sister as litigation guardian in her place, on the basis that the wife no longer has the funds to meet the fees of the current litigation guardian – Where the application is opposed by the husband – Where the husband contended that the sixth respondent no longer needs a litigation guardian – Where the medical evidence clearly establishes that the sixth respondent requires a litigation guardian – Where the husband’s recent opposition raises questions as to the bona fides of that opposition – Where the Court is satisfied that the sister of the sixth respondent is able to competently conduct the proceedings on his behalf – Orders made for the removal of the current litigation guardian and for the sister of the sixth respondent to be appointed.

COSTS – Where the sixth respondent seeks that the husband pay his costs on an indemnity basis, or in the alternative on a scale basis – Where the husband opposes any order for costs and contends that each party should bear their own costs – Where the circumstances are not exceptional such as to warrant an indemnity costs order – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Live with and spend time with arrangements – Decision-making responsibility – Orders for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father from Thursday after school to Tuesday before school each alternate week and half of school holidays.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the applicant seeks a decree of nullity – Where the application was not opposed by the respondent – Where the respondent was married to another person at the time of the entry into the marriage with the applicant – Decree of nullity granted.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where extant orders for partial property payment and spousal maintenance have not been complied with by husband – Where wife seeks to invoke section 90AE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to compel third party corporations in which husband has interests to sell real property and declare and pay dividends for the purpose of enforcement of those orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim application – Risk – Where determination was made at an earlier hearing that child should spend no time with the father on an interim basis in circumstances where there are serious allegations of family violence and child has expressed fear of father – Where father now seeks that child live with him and spend time with mother based on allegations of risk arising from the mother’s mental health and substance dependency.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Entrenched parental conflict – Both parents exposing the children to parental conflict – Where interim parenting orders may have escalated conflict rather than reduced it – Ambit of dispute narrowed significantly during closing submissions – Concessions on final day eliminated need for most factual findings – Outstanding matters largely questions of law, not fact – Detailed consideration of lawfulness of orders for therapy generally – Lainhart & Ellinson considered – Caution to both parents they each risk harming and alienating the children.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the Court is satisfied that the requirements of s 79AA(9)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are met – Where relationship of moderate length – Where there is one child of the relationship who lives in a shared care arrangement –Where the Respondent Wife owned real property at the commencement of the relationship – Where the Respondent Wife abandoned an argument that the real property was held on trust for her parents – Where the Applicant Husband also owned real property at the commencement of the relationship which was sold – Where the Respondent Wife sought a “two pool” approach with real property in a separate pool – Where the Applicant Husband sought a “one pool” approach – Where “one pool” approach adopted – Where parties’ respective contributions are weighed –Where the Applicant Husband is now unemployed and not paying child support – Where the Respondent Wife has modest income – Where no superannuation split sought – Where no adjustment for current and future financial circumstances is just and equitable – Where orders made for the Applicant Husband to receive 35 per cent and the Respondent Wife to receive 65 per cent of the property.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim orders – Where the wife seeks orders for spousal maintenance and litigation funding – Where the parties enjoyed an extravagant lifestyle during the marriage – Where the wife has not established an incapacity to support herself adequately – Where the significant dispute in the substantive proceedings relate to the ownership of companies – Where, on any case, the husband has access to significant funds through the paternal grandparents – Litigation funding order made on a dollar-for-dollar basis for a limited duration.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS – Where appeal has been filed – Where it would be adverse to the children’s interests to order a stay – Where the father’s appeal would not be rendered nugatory by dismissal of his stay application – Where a stay of the appealed orders would cause disturbance to the children’s residence - Refusal to grant a stay pending determination of the appeal – Where the appeal and a final hearing have been listed within eight months of the making of the Orders the subject of appeal – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Jurisdiction – Child is an Australian citizen – Child has been living in the Philippines since 2023 – Child no longer habitually resident in Australia – Where there are ongoing proceedings in the Philippines – Court prevented from exercising jurisdiction by ss 111CC and 111CD of the Family Law Act – Application for parenting orders dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM – Where final hearing for parenting proceedings is listed to commence in June 2026 – Where the parties agreed on a number of issues about communication, schooling and travel – Where the applicant seeks interim orders for overnight time – Where the applicant spends extensive daytime with the child – Where the respondent opposes overnight time – Where the respondent alleges unacceptable risk of harm at night from the applicant’s mental health, use of prescribed sedative medication and history of substance abuse – Where the Family Report writer formed a positive view of the applicant’s parenting and found no risk of harm to the child – Where the Family Report writer expressed ongoing alcohol and drug testing of the applicant may have detrimental impacts on the child – Where the applicant provided supportive evidence from his psychiatrist and negative drug test results – Where the Court is satisfied there is no unacceptable risk to the child in the applicant’s care overnight – Where the Court is satisfied it is in the best interests of the child for the applicant to commence modest overnight time with the child.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where litigation funding by way of partial property settlement is sought – Where $1.7 million is held upon trust for the parties in a solicitor’s trust account – Where the order sought does not exceed the applicant’s entitlement to property settlement – Where it is just and equitable to make an order for a partial property settlement – Where a partial property settlement in the sum of $200,000 is appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties were engaged in a long marriage followed by a significant period of separation – Consideration of contributions – Where the parties agree as to the specie of property to be divided – Property adjusted 65 per cent to the wife and 35 per cent to the husband – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Oral application for a separate issues hearing pursuant to r 10.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where the applicant opposes the oral application – Where the parties have been engaged in two sets of prior proceedings as to parenting and property, each being compromised by way of consent orders made in 2015 and 2023 – Where the parties entered a s 90C Agreement as to spousal maintenance contemporaneously with the making of the 2023 consent orders – Where the parties had a third child in 2025 subsequent to an Order for Divorce taking effect – Where the respondent seeks a separate determination of five specified issues including as to whether the parties third child is a child of a marriage for the purposes of s 60F of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") – Consideration of s 95 of the Act and r 1.04 of the Rules – Where the respondent's submission that there would be a significant saving of costs or substantial narrowing of issues to dispose of the proceedings in a timely manner is not accepted – Where it is just and convenient for all questions of fact and law to be determined in a single trial event – Oral application dismissed – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a decree of nullity is sought – Where the female respondent’s birth certificate from a foreign country contained an error of fact and listed her as male – Where there is no dispute that the respondent is biologically female and has had two children – Where the respondent’s failure to properly rectify the birth certificate meant that the marriage could not be recognised in the Philippines – Whether the inability to have the marriage recognised in the Philippines was a fraud that went to the applicant’s consent – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks that final parenting orders made in 2024 be reconsidered – Consideration of s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court finds that there has not been a significant change in circumstances – Where, despite assertions otherwise, the father has not addressed concerns giving rise to a finding that he posed an unacceptable risk to the children in the first tranche of proceedings – Application dismissed.