Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application by the wife for the husband’s motor vehicle and associated keys to be placed in her care – Where no evidence has been provided to suggest that the husband is not currently in possession of the motor vehicle – Where there are orders preventing the husband from dissipating the marital pool – Husband to deliver the motor vehicle and associated keys to the wife’s solicitors.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks costs following final consent orders made in relation to parenting proceedings – Consideration of relevant principles under s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the father should have resolved the parenting proceedings at the dispute resolution conference prior to the trial, because he knew his alcohol consumption had escalated and he was armed with the results of his hair follicle test – Circumstances warranting departure from the usual principle that each party bear his or her own costs – Order that the father pay the mothers costs fixed at $3,300 – Payment to be made in instalments.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where party is subject to vexatious proceeding order in one relationship applies for leave to institute proceedings in another relationship – leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Application to vary/set aside final property settlement consent order pursuant to s 79A(1)(c) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Threshold determination of whether there has been a default in carrying out an obligation of the final order – Where numerous breaches of the obligations of the final order are pleaded – Where the Court is satisfied that there has been default in carrying out an obligation of the final order.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Applications by the husband and other respondents for costs against a barrister and firm of solicitors who previously acted for the wife, or alternatively, against the applicant wife – Whether there has been exceptional circumstances to justify an order for costs on an indemnity basis – Where it is found that the barrister and firm of solicitors engaged in improper and unreasonable conduct – Where the conduct caused significant costs to be incurred unnecessarily and a waste of Court resources – An order for costs to be paid jointly and severally made against the former barrister and solicitor for the applicant wife – Legal practitioners referred to the relevant state Legal Services Commissioners.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING – EQUITABLE RELIEF – ACCRUED JURISDICTION – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the intervener seeks that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) exercise its accrued jurisdiction to determine his claim in the s 79 proceeding – Where the husband made significant direct financial contributions at the commencement of cohabitation, including by way of an interest in a prosperous trading enterprise – Where the intervener claims a 30 per cent interest in that enterprise as recorded in two written agreements made between he and the husband, one of which was entered years before the marriage – Where the husband concedes the claim of the intervener – Where the wife contends that the two written agreements made between the husband and the intervener purporting to allocate 30 per cent of the husband’s interest to the intervener were “fabricated and not genuine” – Claim of the intervener established – Where the nature of the relationship between the husband and the wife was to some extent commercial and characterised by arm’s length dealings, including the clear maintenance of separate financial identities – Where the wife has attempted to machine aspects of her case, including evidence, to obtain a forensic advantage – Where homemaking contributions do not loom large – Where the wife has failed to adhere to her disclosure obligations – Where the wife will have the first opportunity to retain a real property in specie – Orders made adjusting the property of the husband and the wife 83.5 per cent to the husband and 16.5 per cent to the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Parenting – Where the paternal grandparents review interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar (“the registrar”), which provide for the children to spend supervised time with them – Where the paternal grandparents seek orders for the children to live with them and spend supervised time with the mother – Where the paternal grandparents assert the mother poses a risk of physical and psychological harm to the children – Where the mother has passed the psychological assessments given by the single expert – Where the younger child made allegations of his sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather – Where the allegations were not substantiated by the authorities but the risk of harm is not eradicated – Where the trial is the time and place to settle factual controversies – Where the father lives overseas and is not a residential option for the children – Orders made to vary the length of supervised time the children spend with the paternal grandparents.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for final parenting orders – Where the children have been living with the mother since the parties’ separation in 2019 – Where the children have spent supervised time with the father since June 2023 – Where the Secretary of the NSW Department of Communities and Justice intervened in the proceedings – Where both parents suffer from conditions which compromise their parenting capacity – Where the Secretary proposed the Minister having parental responsibility for the children for a period of 12 months and they live with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer railed against the children living with either parent – Where the father has remained abstinent from alcohol for the past 18 months – Where after years of intensive involvement by the child welfare agency with the mother, the agency has no faith in her parenting capacity – Where the physical, developmental, medical and educational needs of the children are likely to be better met if they live with the father – Ordered the father have parental responsibility for decisions about the children’s residence and they live with him – Ordered the Minister have parental responsibility in respect of all other major long-term issues affecting the children for 12 months – Ordered the children spend substantial and significant time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Exclusion from matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks the sole use and occupation of the matrimonial home – Where the husband opposes the wife’s application and submits that the parties can co-exist under one roof – Consideration of the circumstances of the parties and whether an exclusive occupation order is necessary – Order for the exclusive use and occupation of the home made.