Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant seeks to review orders of a senior appeal judicial registrar refusing an adjournment, and dismissal of an Application in an Appeal – Consideration of s 60 of the Act – Where an appeal does not lie from a divorce order after the order takes effect – Where any application, even one seeking an extension of time in which to commence an appeal, is incompetent and as such constitutes an abuse of process – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant sought to vary final orders made pursuant to Pt VIII of the Act by the Full Court on the re-exercise of its discretion – Where no party sought to submit that the pool of assets to be divided was different to that found by the primary judge nor did any party seek to adduce further evidence on the re-exercise – Where the Court’s appellate jurisdiction is invoked upon the filing of an appeal – Where there is no appeal filed in respect of the orders made – Where the avenue of appeal if any was to the High Court for which special leave was refused – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the cross-appellant appeals parenting orders – Where the cross-appeal was opposed by the cross-respondent – Where the appellant contended a denial of procedural fairness, that the primary judge erred at law, and error by absence of reasons – Where no ground has merit – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Appeal against final orders made for the children to spend no time and have no communication with the appellant – Where the primary judge made a finding that there was a real and substantial possibility that the appellant sexually touched and sexually abused one of the children – Where the primary judge made a finding that there was a very real risk the appellant may commit future acts of sexual abuse against one of the children – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge’s finding that the child’s disclosures were sufficiently consistent and reliable and that both children were at an unacceptable risk of sexual harm was demonstrably wrong, glaringly improbable and contrary to compelling inferences – Where serious and successful challenge was taken to the respondent’s credibility as the primary reporter of the child’s disclosures – Where such challenge was not subject of discussion within the primary judge’s reasons  – Where this ground enjoyed merit – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge erred in giving significant weight to the opinion of an expert about the reliability the child’s disclosures and failed to provide adequate reasons for doing so – Where this ground did not enjoy merit – Where it was asserted the primary judge failed to carefully outline why the risk identified, when balanced against the benefit to the children of the maintenance of a relationship with the appellant, could not be ameliorated – Where this ground also enjoyed merit – Appeal allowed – Where the matter is remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates for the appeal and retrial granted

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant seeks to review a decision of an appeal judicial registrar dismissing an application seeking an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Consideration of the principle that there must be a finality to litigation and that an application for an extension of time is a serious one that is not lightly granted – Where the Court is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated an arguable case on appeal – Where none of the grounds have merit – Where the granting of the extension would be an exercise in futility – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application to expedite – Where the appellant seeks to expedite her appeal against interim parenting orders – Where the orders the subject of the Notice of Appeal were made by consent – Where the appellant contends jurisdictional and factual error – Where the appeal should be listed for hearing within four months,– Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant is the subject of a harmful proceedings order who seeks leave to appeal orders arising from a contravention application – Consideration of s 102Q – Where no ground of appeal has merit and the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – Where the proceeding is vexatious within the terms of 102Q(1) of the Act – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant seeks to review a decision of a senior appeal judicial registrar rejecting for filing a Notice of Appeal – Consideration of r 13.03(2)(b) where the time to appeal orders made at trial dismissing an application for recusal is within 28 days after the final orders are made – Where no final orders have yet been made – Where the right to appeal from the order does not arise until after the final order has been made – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant is the subject of a harmful proceedings order and seeks leave to appeal interlocutory orders – Consideration of s 102Q – Where no ground of appeal has merit and the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – Where the proceeding is vexatious within the terms of 102Q(1) of the Act – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING –– Change of residence – Moratorium on time with mother – Supervised time regime – Injunction restraining contact with maternal grandmother – Allegations of sexual abuse – Unacceptable risk – Emotional and psychological harm – Fixed beliefs – Best interests of child – Scope of trial judge’s discretion – Whether error of fact was material – Whether failure to consider alternative orders amounted to error – Appeal dismissed by majority - Costs

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the appellant sought an extension of time to file the transcript, her Summary of Argument and Contested Appeal Book – Where the appellant sought to adjourn the hearing of the appeal – Where the appellant sought to adduce further evidence in the appeal – Where the appellant is granted a brief extension of time to file her documents and her application to lead further evidence is adjourned to the hearing of the appeal – Application in an Appeal otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Provision of Transcript – Where the appellant files an Application in an Appeal seeking leave to dispense with the requirement under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to purchase and provide a full transcript of the primary proceedings – Where the appellant pleads financial hardship as a barrier to their legal obligations – Where the Court considers the principles in Sampson & Hartnett (2013) FLC 93-542 – Where the Court accepts the appellants evidence of financial hardship – Where the Court determines that the circumstances of the appeal warrant dispensation of the obligation to purchase and provide the transcript of the primary proceedings – Where the Court orders that it forthwith pay all monies and do all acts and things necessary to ensure that all parties receive a full copy of the transcript.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant appeals against a cost order– Where the appellant asserts the primary judge denied her procedural fairness and otherwise made various discretionary errors – Where the grounds of appeal failed to identify error and the Amended Summary of Argument failed to comply with the requisite rules – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the appellant contended apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge erred in failing to consider material considerations before restraining the children from continuing to engage with their therapist – Where the majority held there was no reasonable apprehension of bias – Where the majority held none of the parenting appeal grounds enjoyed merit –– Where the appellant contended that the primary judge had erred in his approach to the determination of contributions and had applied a presumption in favour of equality of contributions – Where the primary judge in his reasons which related to the assessment of each parties’ contributions to the relationship referred to making an “adjustment” in favour of either party on multiple occasions – Where that ground has merit – Where it was contended the primary judge had failed to provide adequate reasons or failed to have regard to certain material considerations – Where parts of that ground had merit – Appeal allowed in part – Where the property adjustment aspect of the final order is set aside – Matter remitted for rehearing – Costs certificate ordered to the appellant and respondent for the property adjustment aspects of the appeal and for the new trial

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – INTERIM PARENTING – Where the respondent contends the appellant poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of the child by way of sexual abuse, family violence and emotional harm – Where the appellant contends the child has been influenced by the mother and denies any risk factor – Where orders for unsupervised time between the child and the appellant were suspended upon the police obtaining a provisional ADVO for the child’s protection from the appellant – Where the appellant sought interlocutory orders for the child to spend professionally supervised time with him – Where the primary judge concluded that it was not established that the reintroduction of time would ensure the safety of the child and hence was not in the child’s best interests – Where the judgment is recorded as ex tempore reasons but is not – Where the appellant made an oral application for leave to appeal – Where the single ground of the appeal was that the primary judge erred by failing to apply relevant legal principle by making findings on contested issues at an interim parenting hearing – Where the appellant misinterprets applicable principle – Where a judge is not prohibited, despite constraints preventing evidence being tested, from making factual determinations at an interlocutory hearing in child related proceedings – Where the primary judge undertook the mandatory conservative assessment of risks posed to the safety of the child in evaluating the probabilities of competing claims – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant appeals from a raft of orders made as to the parenting of the child – Where the primary judge made extensive findings as to the appellant engaging in patterns of intimidation and threats in a sustained campaign of coercion against the respondent over four years post separation – Where the primary judge assessed the risk to the safety of the mother and the child cumulatively – Where the primary judge found that the appellant’s parenting capacity was significantly compromised by his controlling, domineering and intimidating behaviour towards the respondent and others involved in the child’s care and lacked insight into the child’s needs and vulnerabilities – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal are a gallimaufry of appellant terminology conflating disparate categories of alleged error – Error not established – Appeal dismissed.

APPLCIATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant sought to adduce further evidence on appeal – Where the evidence sought to be adduced was available before the primary judge, except for two documents – Where those two documents are relevant to the consideration of a ground as to a deprivation of procedural fairness – Application in an Appeal allowed in part.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appealable orders – Whether order is appealable – Order for inspection of limited documents from court file pursuant to r 15.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Nature of order – Whether the order affected a right – Whether the order was purely procedural – Permission to inspect part of a court file under r 15.13 held to be an appealable order. 

APPEAL – Whether appeal against permission to inspect a court file pursuant to r 15.13 to be reviewed on discretionary standard – Determination of whether applicant had a “proper” interest not a discretionary decision – Determination of the terms of any permission granted is to be reviewed on discretionary standard. 

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – Where applicant in other proceedings misused privileged communications and may have obtained a “forensic advantage” – Where husband in present proceedings is a respondent in the other proceedings (being property settlement proceedings between his parents) – Where wife sought to inspect documents filed by husband in other proceedings on basis of claims husband swore to ownership of property he denies owning in current proceedings – Whether conduct of husband’s mother in earlier proceedings prevented wife from inspecting husband’s documents filed in earlier proceedings – Inspection permitted by primary judge – Appeal dismissed – First and second appellants and first cross-appellant pay first respondents costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Respondent obtained orders better than earlier offer – Appellant’s conduct at trial caused considerable unwarranted costs – Primary judge ordered appellant to pay half the respondent’s total costs – No evidence particularising costs incurred – No evidentiary basis for finding costs were reasonably incurred – Appeal allowed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Definitions of various bases for ordering costs in the Rules – Operation of the Division 2 scale of costs – Reasonable rates of “solicitor and client” costs – Costs fixed in a lump sum based upon the scale.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where final orders were made by consent adjusting the spouses’ property interests and dismissing tortious claims brought against the husband by the wife and her son – Where the primary judge summarily dismissed interlocutory applications filed by the wife and her son seeking to set aside the consent orders – Where the wife later fulfilled the consent orders before an appeal was filed by her son – Where the applicant has no standing to appeal an order dismissing the wife’s application – Where the applicant could not advance any reason to validly challenge the dismissal of his application under s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the applicant cannot establish his assent to the consent orders was induced by duress or coercion – Where the applicant does not suffer any injustice by the denial of leave to appeal – Application in an appeal seeking an extension of time within which to bring another appeal and to adduce further evidence is dismissed – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Where the respondents filed Submitting Notices.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application to expedite – 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 respondent albeit she has in the past consented to interim orders providing for unsupervised time – Where the appeal has been listed for hearing in under three months – Where the listing amounts to an expedition of the appeal – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant husband appeals from interlocutory parenting orders – Where the appellant contends apprehended bias and discrimination on the part of the primary judge – Where appellant takes umbrage with the primary judge's admission and weighing of evidence – Where a thorough reading of the interlocutory transcript demonstrates no impropriety on the part of the primary judge – Where none of the grounds of appeal have merit – Appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in fixed sums.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – Where the appeal was deemed abandoned due to the applicant’s failure to file the transcript on time – Where the applicant applied for reinstatement of the appeal – Where the appeal was regularly commenced – Where the applicant overlooked the deadline for filing the transcript – Where the respondent did not identify any prejudice to him if the appeal was reinstated – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – Show Cause – Where the applicant was invited to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where the appellant sought to appeal orders made by a judge of Division 2 dismissing the appellant’s review of orders made by a senior judicial registrar – Where none of the grounds of appeal have merit – Where the Amended Notice of Appeal constitutes an abuse of process – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the respondents seek costs from the appellant or the solicitor who acted for the appellant – Where the original appellant died shortly after commencing the appeal – Where the deceased’s daughter was substituted as the appellant and continued the appeal – Consideration of liability for costs of a party acting in a representative capacity – Where the solicitor departed from providing objective legal advice – Where the solicitor’s advice was couched in emotive language – Where the solicitor dismissed the appellant’s concerns about the prospects of the appeal – Advice to the appellant on her exposure to costs was insufficient and wrong – Solicitor to pay the costs of the first and second respondents on an indemnity basis – Solicitor to pay the costs of the third respondent in a fixed sum – Solicitor to pay the costs of the appellant incurred in the costs application.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL – COSTS – Where the primary judge ordered the appellant to pay costs of the respondent and cross-appellant on a party/party basis – Where the appellant challenges the making of a costs order – Where the respondent and cross-appellant challenges the making of party/party costs and not costs on an indemnity basis – Where there is no error in the exercise of the discretion of the primary judge – Where there are adequate reasons – Appeal and Cross-Appeal are dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an appeal – Where the appellant seeks a stay pending determination of the appeal and/or the determination of his substantive relief – Where the primary judge’s reasons are presumed to be correct – Where there is not established any prejudice to the appellant warranting a stay – Where it is questionable whether the appellant even has an arguable appeal – Where the Court is satisfied that a stay serves no purpose – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the appeal is partly allowed – Where the primary judge made injunctions against the father which conflict or overlap with the terms of an operable State family violence order against him – Where the error is cured by discharging the offending orders – Where the appeal is otherwise dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant wife contests the quantum of a costs order made against her – Where the contention the costs were miscalculated as indemnity costs is rejected – Where the wife alleges she was denied procedural fairness – Where the parties were heard and the primary judge was entitled and obliged to determine the dispute on the material adduced by the parties – Where the primary judge properly considered the factors listed in the costs provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge gave adequate reasons for fixing costs – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave to appeal – Harmful proceedings – Where the primary judge made parenting orders and restrained the applicant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave – Where the applicant sought a grant of leave to appeal from the orders of the primary judge – Where all grounds of appeal are bereft of merit – Where the applicant has not established the proposed appeal is not vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where appellant appeals from procedural orders in a parenting matter – Where procedural orders do not constitute a judgment and are not decisive of either parties’ rights – Where procedural orders do not prejudice the appellant’s substantive rights in any way – Where appeal incompetent – Where even if appeal was competent, it would be futile – Leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in a discretionary determination in the assessment of weight to be given to the respondent’s contributions – Where an evaluation of the dollar effect of the contribution finding demonstrates the primary judge’s orders fall outside the “generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible” – Appeal allowed – Where the parties sought a re-exercise of discretion rather than remit the matter for rehearing – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONSENT ORDERS – Where the appellant appeals from parenting orders made by consent – Where appellant denies he provided informed and voluntary consent– Where appellant was represented by counsel when consent orders were made – Where appellant alleges apprehended bias and undue pressure – Where a thorough reading of the transcript reveals no bias or undue pressure on the part of the primary judge – Where the appellant criticises the primary judge's supposed reliance on a child wishes report – Where the appellant and his legal representative made forensic choices not to test this report – Where primary judge would be entitled to have regard to this report in deciding to make consent orders – Where appellant alleges the primary judge failed to apply relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") when making the consent orders – Where consent orders are not incongruous with any of the requirements of the Act – No grounds of appeal established – Appeal dismissed with costs to be paid to the respondent in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals from final property settlement orders made between him and the wife – Where the husband contends the beneficial conferral to the wife of all the spouses’ known property was manifestly unjust and inequitable – Where the adjustment made under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act (1975) was not so incongruent against numerous undisturbed findings – Where the husband is to sell a real property jointly owned by the second and third respondents in default of paying the wife a sum of money – Where the second respondent is controlled exclusively by the husband – Where there is no impediment to the Court making property orders which impinge upon a third party who is the alter ego of one spouse – Where the third respondent will receive one-half of the net sale proceeds if the property is sold and therefore their property rights are not impinged – Where the husband cannot belatedly allege an apprehension of judicial bias where no disqualification application was made in respect of the primary judge – Where the grounds alleging the husband was denied procedural fairness lack merit – Where the factual findings about the financial non-disclosure and active deceit of the husband were evidently available to the primary judge both expressly and inferentially – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS –Where the appellant filed a Notice of Discontinuance two days prior to the hearing – Where the respondent made an oral application seeking the costs of the appeal – Order for costs of the appeal made on a party and party basis.

APPEAL – PRACTITIONERS – Where Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) was used in the preparation of the appellant’s Summary of Argument and List of Authorities – Where authorities were incorrect – Where the extent and nature of the use of AI is unclear – Consideration of the use of AI in family law proceedings – Orders made referring the appellant’s legal representatives to the relevant regulatory bodies – Where the appellant’s solicitor consented to paying the respondent’s costs with respect to the AI issue.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where leave to appeal is sought – Where there is not sufficient doubt to warrant appellate scrutiny – Where there is no merit in any of the proposed grounds of appeal – Where leave to appeal is refused.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Harmful proceedings – Where the primary judge amended machinery provisions in final property orders and restrained the applicant from instituting further proceedings – Where the proposed grounds of appeal are misconceived – Where the proposed appeal has no prospects of success – Proposed appeal proceedings are vexatious – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Property – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from a series of interlocutory orders – Where the application by the husband to set aside final property orders for alleged fraud was summarily dismissed – Where the husband had no evidence of fraud committed by the wife and could not maintain his contention the primary judge failed to consider the allegation – Where the application by the husband to claim child support arrears of the wife was summarily dismissed – Where child support is a debt payable to and enforceable by the Commonwealth and not at the suit of the husband – Where an application by the husband for the wife to bear the costs of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and a single expert witness was hopeless because no parenting proceedings then existed – Where procedural orders adjourning aspects of the parties’ respective applications are not judgments from which an appeal lies – Oral application by the husband to adduce further evidence in the appeal is dismissed – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the primary judge made final property settlement orders between the spouses – Where the husband was to sell his real property in default of paying the wife a sum of money – Where the orders do not make provision for the wife’s payment if the property is sold for less than a certain amount – Where the primary judge refused to deploy the slip rule to amend the orders – Where the orders were not just and equitable – Appeal allowed – Where the order is set aside and replaced – Costs certificate ordered to the wife for the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the wife appeals from final property settlement orders – Where the wife unsuccessfully challenges the findings of the primary judge as to the parties’ existing property – Where the contention the primary judge overlooked taking account of non-disclosure by the husband is rejected – Where complaints of how the primary judge accorded weight to the parties’ respective contributions are incompetent in the absence of any complaint about the manifest unreasonableness of the overall judgment – Where the primary judge did not make any appealable error on the evidence adduced at trial – Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence – Where the further evidence collides violently with the husband’s evidence at trial – Application granted – Where the husband affirmed he wanted to rely upon updated evidence if the proceeding had to be re-determined – Appeal allowed – Orders of the primary judge are set aside – Matter remitted for rehearing – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL–PARENTING–Where the appellant was allocated decision-making responsibility in respect to the younger child's psychological and educational support only–Where the appellant appealed orders allocating the balance of decision-making responsibility to the respondent in respect of both children–Where there were findings of high parental conflict both during and after separation–Where no grounds of appeal were successful–Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition – Where the husband seeks expedition of his application for leave to appeal from interim orders made in part-heard proceedings – Where the primary judge dismissed the husband’s oral application to compel the wife to swear an affidavit regarding her former solicitors’ possession of material over which he claimed legal professional privilege – Where the trial is scheduled to resume in December 2025 – Where the primary judge may yet grant the husband’s fresh application seeking leave to re-open the evidence in the trial to permit further cross-examination of the wife – Where the husband retains the right to appeal from the final judgment resulting from the trial – Where the husband fails to demonstrate the Full Court should be mobilised with such urgency – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals from interlocutory orders made to implement final property settlement orders – Where the allegations of judicial bias are without merit – Where complaints of denial of procedural fairness are unsustainable – Where the husband was comprehensively heard on his application to adjourn the hearing – Where the husband was given a reasonable opportunity to pay costs and interest to the wife – Where the husband failed to state concisely why the findings of the primary judge were erroneous – Where the primary judge made an immaterial legal error in applying repealed provisions in relation to costs – Leave to appeal refused – Application dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where final orders were previously made – Where the respondent relocated the children’s residence – Where the appellant sought a recovery order and for the children to live with him – Where the primary judge made interim orders for the children to live with the respondent – Challenges as to weight – Where the appellant had sought new orders and thus accepted the earlier orders were no longer in the best interests of the children – Where the appellant’s reliance on Rice and Asplund and s 65DAAA is misguided – Where the primary judge dealt with the evidence and submissions before her – Appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – Appeal from dismissal of a stay application pending appeal – Where the appeal has been dismissed – Where there is no longer any basis for a stay – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to file a fourth amended Notice of Appeal – Where leave is granted – Where the applicant seeks an appeal be rescheduled or in the alternative she be granted leave from attending – Where the applicant is excused from attendance – Where an Application in an Appeal is otherwise dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant discontinued her appeal – Where the appellant objects to the costs sought by the respondent – Where the appellant submits if costs are granted, they should be in a significantly lower value – Costs ordered against the appellant on a party/party basis and in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against supervised time orders at a contact centre – Where the appellant asserts incompetence of counsel resulting in the absence of a fair trial – Where the appellant asserts forensic error and incompetence of counsel by a failure to read and rely on affidavits of familial witnesses not required for cross-examination – Consideration of the principles identified in OP v TP & The Child Representative (Conduct of Counsel) (2002) 30 Fam LR 281 – Where the appellant contends weight challenges – Appellate error not established – Appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant filed an Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence – Where the evaluation of the documents sought to be adduced are necessary to the determination of the appeal – Application allowed. 

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant made an oral application during the hearing of the appeal to adduce additional further evidence – Where the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the oral application – Where the appellant did not establish that the further evidence sought to be adduced was relevant to establishing any ground of appeal or would likely produce a different result – Oral application dismissed.

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant abandoned one of the grounds of appeal in his Summary of Argument – Where the appellant made a second oral application during the hearing of the appeal for leave to prosecute the abandoned ground and to raise issues on appeal not raised in the Summary of Argument – Consideration of r 13.23 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), including advancing issues not in the Summary of Argument – Consideration of the fair and orderly conduct of appellate processes and of prejudice in the conduct of the hearing of the appeal – Where the appellant was unable to explain why the ground was abandoned or ought to be reinstated – No serious injustice submitted to be occasioned to the appellant if leave was refused – Oral application dismissed during the hearing of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Denial of procedural fairness – Miscarriage of justice – Where the primary judge at trial excluded self-represented litigant from Court and engaged in discussions with counsel for other parties in his absence – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to a judge other than the primary judge for retrial – Costs certificates ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of transcript – Where the appellant seeks an order that the Court procure the transcripts of several hearing dates at its own expense – Where the transcript for the date of the appealed orders has already been made available to the appellant – Where appellant argues that earlier transcripts are necessary to demonstrate apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge – Where the appeal concerns an event which has already passed – Where there are several issues that are currently reserved to the primary judge – Held there is no utility in the Court providing the transcripts at its own expense – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from property settlement orders – Where appellant ordered to indemnify the respondent for potential capital gains tax liability – Where the Full Court is satisfied the primary judge did not intend to make this order – Order corrected under the “slip rule” – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for a Review – Where a declaration is sought that the Appeal Judicial Registrar did not make an order – Where no order was made – Where amendments are sought to the appeal book – Where the requested additions to the appeal book do not fall into any category identified in r 13.20 – Where it is not identified how requested additions are necessary to enable the court hearing the appeal to reach its decision – Where the appellant seeks the removal of the Appeal Judicial Registrar – Where the appellant has not identified any legal basis to preclude an Appeal Judicial Registrar from performing their administrative appeal duties – Where the application for review is dismissed