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

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 - 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 - 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 – 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 – CHILDREN – Final parenting orders –Whether the child should travel overseas to spend time with the father – Logistics of the child travelling overseas – Best interests of the child – Risk – Family violence – Father convicted of assaulting the mother – Coercive and controlling behaviour – Father’s relationship with other daughter broken down.

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. 

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 – 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 — 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 – 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 – interlocutory – s 65DAAA – where final parenting orders made in 2021 for child aged 8 years – where the father seeks that the final orders be reconsidered – where the mother seeks that the application is dismissed – whether there has been a significant change in circumstances – where the father has the capacity to deceive –  where the father has a complex relationship with alcohol –  history of poor mental health and perpetration of family violence –  where the father has continued to attend therapy and complete various courses – where the father’s evidence often reliant on self-reporting – unable to make any finding that the father’s insight has improved –  where no significant change in circumstances found – application dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – time with the Father – whether the Father should have regular unsupervised time with the child and if so the nature of such time – whether the Father’s drug use places the child at an unacceptable risk of harm – whether Mother’s capacity to parent is discernibly impacted if the child spends regular unsupervised time with the Father – whether the Father should be involved in the decision making regarding major long-term issues – whether the child’s name should be changed to the Mother’s surname or become a hyphenated version of the Mother and Fathers surnames’ – whether the Father should be restrained from filing further proceedings – whether there should be a ‘guillotine order’ to operate if the Father misses visits. 

FAMILY LAW – Contested divorce application – where the parties disagree when the marital relationship ended – where this is one child of the relationship – where an occasional sexual relationship continued after either parties date of the end of martial relationship – where the parties continue to live under one roof – where one party had frequently attempted to have the other removed from the house by calling the police – determined that the parties had been separated for more than 12 months at the time of the divorce application – divorce granted. 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – two teenage girls – with whom the children live with – high parental conflict – alignment by the father – breakdown of the mother’s parental relationship with the children – children’s mental health concerns – weighing up of future risk factors – consideration of the girls’ firm views – best interests require the girls live with father – only realistic option.   

FAMILY LAW – Application to review decision of Senior Judicial Registrar – application for review partially upheld. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the applicant and the children make numerous allegations against the respondent – Where the respondent was charged but all criminal charges were later withdrawn – Where the applicant views the respondent negatively – Where the children’s relationships with the respondent are fractured – Where the children currently spend supervised time with the respondent – Where the children have expressed interest in spending time with the respondent – Where the children will benefit from having a relationship with the respondent – Assessment of risk – Where the respondent does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Long marriage – Where both parties made significant financial and non-financial contributions – Where the Wife claims that her contributions were made more arduous as a result of family violence perpetrated by the Husband towards herself and the children – Whether the Husband committed family violence as alleged – Whether the Husband made full disclosure of his income working as a self-employed builder – Where the Husband allowed others to use his building licence to take on projects for which he claimed he received no financial benefit – Whether there should be an adjustment to the Wife because of the Husband’s greater income earning capacity – Just and equitable division. 

FAMILY LAW – Review application – de facto maintenance – alleged failure to seek employment – no proper basis for maintenance order. 

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – second tranche of parenting proceedings with final orders previously made in 2023 – s65DAAA satisfied – where mother had alleged father posed an unacceptable risk of harm and unilaterally suspended time – where mother no longer alleged unacceptable risk at trial – court considers ‘meaningful relationship’ and phraseology informing s60CC(2)(e) – court satisfied father did not perpetrate family violence or sexual abuse upon child – court satisfied mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to child’s emotional/ psychological safety – unacceptable risk posed by mother able to be ameliorated – child to live with father and father to have sole parental responsibility– initial moratorium on child’s time with mother – progression of supervised to unsupervised time with mother. 

FAMILY LAW – Costs and default application – dispute as to appropriate orders to be made in default of property settlement –necessary circumstances for a section 106A order – costs application following final property orders – whether section 117 or section 114UB applied – no material difference in any event – whether a party wholly unsuccessful – whether conduct of the proceedings justified an order for indemnity and/or party/party costs – whether oral offers made during mediation were admissible – mediation agreement provided anything said in mediation was not to be put in evidence – where oral offerer party did not make a written offer in compliance with rule 4.11 – oral offers made in mediation not relevant – therefore oral offers in mediation not admissible pursuant to section 117(2A)(g) – if long and oral offer in mediation is admissible then no weight given to oral offers – general law authorities relating to section 131(2)(h) of Evidence Act discussed – Family Law Act authorities applied – application for costs dismissed – application for costs of the unsuccessful costs application dismissed.   

FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – father seeking increased time with child – where family report writer identifies attachment issues and developmental trauma of child – family report writer recommends increased time with father – where mother highly critical of recommendations of family report writer – where mother submits that the child’s young age contends against increased time with father until final hearing and the testing of evidence – applicable law on interim hearing – significant weight given to family report on interim hearings. 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the two eldest children resist spending time with the mother – Where the two youngest children live with the mother and she seeks a change of care for the elder two children – Where the mother seeks a moratorium on the father’s time with all four children – Where the father seeks all four children live with him – Where there is ongoing inter-parental conflict – Where the father alleges the mother’s physical chastisement and discipline of the children is a form of coercion and control – Where court finds that mother’s excessive disciplining of children was not behaviour that coerces and controls – Where the mother alleges the father has and continues to perpetrate family violence against her – Where both parents lacked insight – Where need to balance the impact of removing the two eldest children from the father’s care against potential that they will not have a relationship with their mother – Where placing older children in care of mother places them at risk of harm but risk to younger children of living with mother can be mitigated – Costs.

FAMILY LAW – Final parenting orders – undefended hearing – where the father did not appear at the final hearing – where the court is satisfied to proceed in the absence of the father – where the court is satisfied to proceed undefended – where the children live with the mother – where the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children – where the children have no contact or communication with the father.   

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Allegations of grooming and sexualised behaviour – Unilateral suspension of time – Whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children including of sexual harm – Where s 69ZT applies to some of the evidence – Where the evidence of each parties’ case is lacking – Where the children can have a meaningful relationship.  

FAMILY LAW – Enforcement of a Binding Financial Agreement – Hearing in the absence of the respondent – Where respondent has been served with the Application and other court documents but has not participated in the proceedings – Where the wife seeks orders pursuant to s 90UN(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (NSW) (“the Act”) to require the respondent to execute all necessary documents to transfer his right and interest in a parcel of real property – Where the Agreement is enforced as an order of the Court.  

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – undefended final hearing in a Priority Property Pool case – husband has not participated in proceeding – marriage with cohabitation of approximately six years – post-separation period of 12.5 years – parties aged 71 and 65, with no children of their relationship – modest assets consisting primarily of an unencumbered rural real property and superannuation – assessment of contributions and current and future circumstances – just and equitable for wife to receive 73% of parties’ known assets and husband to receive 27%, consisting predominantly of his superannuation.

MIGRATION – deportation – application for urgent injunction –applicant provided false information on visa application – visa cancelled at immigration clearance – injunction to prevent Minister removing applicant – no jurisdictional error. 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY –– where issue exists as to the value of the property of the parties available for adjustment –where issue exists as to the value of the payment to be made by the husband to the wife - where the wife seeks 65 percent of the property as she asserts in her favour – where the husband seeks that he achieve 75 percent of the property as he asserts in his favour- where there are evidentiary deficiencies and vacuums in the evidence adduced by each party and neither complied with their obligations of disclosure - where there is agreement as to how property is to be adjusted in specie- where neither party impressed as a compelling witness -where the material sought to be relied upon by the parties was disproportionate and unnecessary - where the husband made the overwhelming majority of the direct financial contributions directing weight to the use made of those contributions – where no orders made adjusting the contribution finding - orders made for the wife to receive 35 percent and the husband 65 percent of the found property pool.