Judgments

FAMILY LAW – forum dispute – where applicant contends Australia is most appropriate forum to determine property dispute and seeks declaration to that effect– where respondent contends New Zealand most appropriate forum and seeks Australian process be stayed – stay application dismissed – restraint sought against respondent dealing with property interest in New Zealand granted – no declaration about forum made

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW - partial consent parenting orders – three remaining issues in dispute – parental responsibility – commencement and duration of father’s time – Christmas – mother’s proposed orders are in the best interest of the child.   

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks to retain more than 100% of the value of the parties’ assets – whether funds paid by wife’s father should be considered a loan or contribution – where the wife fails to challenge expert valuation evidence. 

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Circumstances justifying order – Father left the country – Father’s application doomed to fail – Costs awarded to the mother on a party and party basis.

FAMILY LAW – review application - proposition that there is a want of independence by the expert - appears to be parent-focused, rather than child-focused – application for review dismissed.    

FAMILY LAW – Costs – whether an application for costs is made following consent orders – whether the conduct of the Applicant necessitates a costs order being made – whether indemnity or fixed costs ought to be awarded – costs order made.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Mention following afterhours ex parte orders placing child on the watch list – Where parties seek final orders by consent at mention – Where court satisfied that final orders are in the best interests of the child – Final orders made by consent – watchlist order – authenticated consent.  

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where a conflictual relationship does not prohibit equal time arrangements – where it is in the child’s best interests to spend equal time with each parent.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where legal liabilities are excluded from the pool – where an adjustment to non-superannuation assets would be fanciful – where a 10% adjustment of superannuation is made in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE - where the husband concedes the wife has need for maintenance – where the husband’s liabilities cannot be ignored - where the wife could not satisfy the Court the husband has the capacity to pay maintenance. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – one child (aged 10) – final parenting orders made by consent on fourth day of final hearing in respect of most issues – child’s schooling for final year of primary school and secondary school in dispute – order for child to remain at his current primary school unless otherwise agreed – insufficient evidence to determine child’s secondary schooling.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – alleged loans by second and third respondent to spouse parties, exceeding value of spouse parties’ non-superannuation assets – finding monies were advanced by way of loan and are repayable by spouse parties – order for repayment of funds to second and third respondent from sale of spouse parties’ real estate – spouse parties liable in respect of remaining debt as reflected in loan agreements – remaining assets and superannuation of modest value – order for spouse parties to retain those remaining assets in their possession and an adjusting payment by husband for wife to receive 55% of remaining assets and superannuation and husband 45% - directions for filing of submissions in relation to costs. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – husband and wife separated in 2000 – purchased a real property in joint names in 2001 – parties divorced in 2004 – there was never a formal property settlement – wife lived in and maintained the real property for 24 years – third parties seek sale of real property to satisfy a criminal compensation order against husband for sexual offending after separation – husband in prison and filed a submitting notice – competing applications pursuant to section 78 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and/or section 79 of the Act – principles of constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel – found that husband is estopped from now arguing he has a beneficial interest in the real property – held that the husband holds his interest in the real property on trust for the wife – orders made under section 78(2) to give effect to the change of title – in the alternative an assessment was made as to what orders (if any) would be just and equitable under section 79 of the Act – determined the wife should receive 100 per cent of the pool. 

FAMILY LAW – Property enforcement – payment of interest – where final property adjustment orders made by the Court requiring that the respondent pay a sum of money to the applicant within 60 days and interest for late payment – where the applicant seeks interest for late payment of the judgment debt – finding that the respondent paid the judgment debt to the applicant 59 days late – finding that in the circumstances the respondent owes the applicant interest for late payment of the judgment debt – orders that the respondent pay the applicant interest on the judgment debt at the rate prescribed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – Property enforcement – division of recovered funds – where final property adjustment orders made provision for division of monies recovered from a third party after the deduction of “reasonable legal expenses” – where the parties agree that the respondent recovered the monies in full and paid a sum to the applicant – where the applicant disputes the respondent’s claimed deductions and seeks a further payment – findings in respect of which of the respondent’s claimed deductions constitute “reasonable legal expenses” – orders that the respondent make a further payment to the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – REVIEW – Procedural – Applicant seeks to review a decision of a deputy registrar who rejected the filing of the Applicant’s initiating application due to the non-filing of a certificate from a Family Dispute Resolution practitioner pursuant to section 60I(7) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – property proceedings – undefended hearing – where the applicant sought to dissolve a partnership between her and the respondent and indemnity in circumstances where the respondent continued to operate businesses owned by the partnership – where the respondent has since separation used partnership funds to purchase other businesses and assets – where the applicant seeks payment of a lump sum to her by the respondent as a final property adjustment – orders for the unilateral dissolution of the partnership under state law and payment of a fixed sum to the applicant by the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the applicant seeks that the respondent pay her costs of the property proceedings – findings that the respondent’s non-engagement with the proceedings has necessitated the applicant incurring legal expenses – orders that the respondent pay the applicant’s legal costs as assessed in accordance with the rules of court.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where a child was returned to Belgium following a successful ‘Hague Convention’ application – Where orders regarding the child’s living arrangements were subsequently made by a Belgian court – Where the mother then returned to Australia and filed an application in this court seeking a recovery order – Whether Australia is a ‘clearly inappropriate’ forum to reconsider orders concerning child – Whether a recovery order should issue to bring the child back to Australia – Whether the doctrine of res judicata and/or Anshun estoppel applies – Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since orders were made by the Australian and Belgian Courts. 

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Applicant a former stepfather seeking shared decision-making and equal time with child – First Respondent mother opposing any time –– finding of coercion and control – unacceptable risk – orders made for sole decision-making to the First Respondent mother and limited time with the Applicant.

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO PROPERTY – where de facto relationship found to have commenced in 2001 prior to the respondent living in Australia – where parties separated in August 2009 – where parties lived separated under the one roof for about two years – where real property held as joint tenants - where significant post-separation contributions made over many years -  where husband 28 years older than the wife – where both parties have re-partnered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim hearing – proposed change of residence – child living nine nights with the mother and five with father – wishes of the child – found to be unacceptable risk of harm in mother’s care – immediate change of residence to the father – limited term time and holidays to the mother – mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and to commence with a psychologist – changeover in public place when not at school. 

FAMILY LAW – review application – de facto application for interim spousal maintenance dismissed.   

FAMILY LAW – parenting – partial consent parenting orders – restraint of physical discipline pursuant to s 68B – orders restraining application of gun licence – overseas travel allowed – child's name removed from airport watch list – identity contact.  

FAMILY LAW – Review application –  change of venue from Town B to Brisbane – application for review dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – specialised Indigenous List – one child (aged 5) – child and parties Aboriginal – family affected by numerous traumatic events, including death of child’s mother – child lives with maternal grandmother pursuant to interim orders – ongoing concerns of drug and alcohol use by father and paternal grandmother – time with father and paternal grandmother has been suspended after the paternal grandmother removed the child from the maternal grandmother’s care contrary to interim orders and recovery order made and executed – order for maternal grandmother to have sole decision-making responsibility and for child to live with her, ultimately by agreement – order for child to resume spending supervised time with father and paternal grandmother notwithstanding opposition by maternal grandmother and recommendation of independent children’s lawyer – various injunctions made as sought by the parties. 

FAMILY LAW - Property – transfer of small claims of frozen funds – summary s 79 order - property proceedings are otherwise dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – After hours service – urgent watchlist order application – ex parte application – where the Applicant fears the Respondent will leave the Commonwealth of Australia – where the Respondent has strong ties with Country B.   

FAMILY LAW – Review of Orders made 19 June 2025 – seeking removal of name of Airport Watchlist – removal of freezing order – removal of second respondent to the proceedings– application for review is dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – Ex tempore ruling – respondent husband’s application that the Court grant a certificate pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – where respondent husband did not appear at the interlocutory hearing due to unspecified medical reason – where respondent husband failed to provide medical evidence – where applicant wife sought that the application be dismissed – application dismissed with costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child live with the mother and spend no time with or communicate with the father – where the father’s evidence is inconsistent – where the father’s use of cannabis and family violence poses an unacceptable risk to the mother and child’s safety.

FAMILY LAW – Property proceedings – undefended hearing – parties married in 2004 and separated in 2015 – divorce order made in 2017 – proceeding commenced out of time in October 2024 – major asset of the parties interest in partnership operating a farm – farm acquired in 2015 as a result of husband’s capital contribution – wife left Australia shortly after acquisition of farm and has never worked or contributed to it -farm running at a loss – wife agreed to extension of time to bring proceeding but has not filed any documents in the case – wife has failed to comply with orders to file documents – assessment of contributions – just and equitable – circumstances justify one party retaining identifiable assets.

FAMILY LAW — PARENTING — Whether the child will be placed at an unacceptable risk of harm if she spends any time or has any communication with the Father — Whether the Mother’s parenting of the child will be discernibly impacted if the Father spends any time or has any communication with the child — Whether the Mother should have sole decision making responsibility — Where the Father accepts that he has committed acts of family violence — Where the child deeply impacted by her exposure to family violence — Psychological wellbeing of the child a major consideration. 

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Urgent application to enable mother to obtain passport for child without consent of father – Where mother seeking to return to the Commonwealth of Australia from the Republic of India – Where parties’ two children travelled to foreign jurisdiction with the Father with the Mother’s consent – Where the Father returned one child to the Commonwealth of Australia pursuant to consent orders but failed to return the other child – Extant final parenting orders provide that children live with mother – Where recovery order previously made – Where India a non-Hague country – Where mother travelled to India and issued writ of habeas corpus proceedings to recover child – Matter dealt with efficiently and admirably by foreign Court – Foreign Court orders compel father to return child to mother – Where child returned to mother’s care in foreign jurisdiction via foreign child protection agency – Father’s consent to cancellation of existing passport and issue of another ordered be dispensed with – Australian passport authorities requested to deal with application as a matter of real urgency – Child returned to Australia with mother following orders being made.

FAMILY LAW – De Facto Property - where the husband received a post-separation inheritance, where modest asset pool – where husband’s inheritance largely either wasted or unavailable – where husband transferred the remaining significant asset to second respondent - where wife seeks a s106B order – where husband and second respondent allege transfer made in payment of a debt - s 106B order made. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim hearing – parenting arrangements following short form report – prior to testing of evidence – weight to be given to wishes of children – one child with special needs and mental health issues – need for consistency and stability for children – lack of communication between parties – increased time – issue of shared care to be determined at final hearing. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim spousal maintenance – lack of evidence about parties’ financials – applicant did not establish a need for maintenance – application for spousal maintenance dismissed.