Judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM – Where the child has lived with the mother and spent only supervised time with the father since the parties’ separation in December 2020 – Where the child was removed from the mother’s care by child protection authorities for one night in April 2026 – Where the father filed an urgent interim application for a range of orders, including that the child live with him – Where at the hearing the father the father only sought orders for the mother to undertake hair follicle testing – Where the evidence does not support a need for hair follicle testing – Application dismissed – Father to pay the mother’s costs in a fixed sum.

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

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there is one child to the marriage – Where the father has not spent time with the child in several years – Where there is a significant history of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the father seeks that he spends time with the child graduating to unsupervised – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek that there be no time between the father and the child – Orders made for no time between the father and the child.

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the husband failed to attend the final hearing – where the third and fourth respondents did not participate in the proceedings – where the final hearing proceeded on an undefended basis – where the husband failed to make proper disclosure – where the Court considered the evidence of family violence perpetrated by the husband against the wife – where the husband spent a period of time in prison for the breach of a domestic violence order – where the husband unilaterally transferred joint property without accounting for the same –where it is just and equitable to make an order – where the Court considered contributions, future circumstances and justice and equity in accordance with the normal principles.

PARENTING – where the wife made an instanter application seeking an order in relation to passports for two children – application granted.
 

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – Existence of de facto relationship – Where the applicant seeks a declaration that a de facto relationship lasting more than two years existed between the parties pursuant to s 90RD(1) of the Act – Where the applicant seeks a declaration that he made substantial contributions to the relationship pursuant to s 90RD(2)(c) – Where the parties’ are in conflict about most factual matters – Where the respondent’s evidence was treated with a great deal of circumspection – Where it was declared that a de facto relationship lasting more than two years existed.

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Instructions for Expert Witnesses – Where the parties propose that different material be provided to a Single Joint Expert – Where the applicant and Independent Children’s Lawyer concur on the material to be provided – Where the respondent seeks to include 822 pages of further documentation – Where the Court finds that the material sought to be included by the respondent is self-serving, irrelevant or likely to cause unwarranted delay or cost consequences – Where the Court dictates a list of material to be provided to the Single Joint Expert.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Releasing documents from current matter to be used in matters in other jurisdictions - Parenting arrangements reopened due to family violence and sexual assault allegations – Release of material to parties for use in criminal, family violence order, and disciplinary proceedings – Material produced under subpoena, disclosure, and Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 67ZBE –– Party is self-represented in other proceedings - Safeguards for release of material – Special circumstances exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for stay pending appeal – Where the applicant seeks to stay order calling upon his litigation guardian to show cause why she should not be removed – Order stayed pending disposition of appeal.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for disqualification – Where the applicant makes an application for disqualification on the basis of bias or apprehension of bias – Where the applicant does not establish any basis for disqualification – Wife’s application for disqualification dismissed.

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where each parent promotes an order that the children live in his/her primary care – Where the father contends that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the mother is so significant that a change of primary care is warranted – Where the Court finds that the father does not pose a risk of harm to the children – Where such an inaccurate belief is harmful to the children – Where the Court places a moratorium on time between the children and the mother for a short period – Where thereafter the children are to live with the mother and spend significant time with the father. 

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Application for a decree of nullity – Where the applicant asserts her consent to the marriage was vitiated by duress and hence was not real consent – Where the applicant bears the onus of proof to establish the facts and circumstances to ground the relief sought – Consideration of s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the applicant has not established the ground for relief to the requisite degree – Application dismissed – Submissions as to costs and referral of the court file to the Department of Home Affairs.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a decree of nullity is sought – Respondent wife remarried prior to her divorce taking effect – Marriage is void.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Application for enforcement – Where final property orders were made in 2024 – Where the respondents failed to make payment to the wife as required under the final orders – Where the final orders contain default sale provisions – Where the husband and second respondent failed to cooperate with the default sale process – Where the wife seeks to be appointed attorney to conduct default sales – Wife appointed as attorney for default sale of properties.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Asset preservation order – Where the wife seeks the continuation of existing asset preservation orders pending payment of her entitlements under final property orders – Where the husband and second respondent oppose the wife’s application – Where the wife alleges that the husband and/or second respondent dealt with property without notice and in breach of final property orders – Consideration of principles related to interlocutory injunctions – Prima facie case established – Real risk of dissipation of assets – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks indemnity costs against the respondents in relation to applications made to enforce final property orders – Where final property orders were made some 16 months prior – Where the husband and second respondent engaged in conduct to frustrate satisfaction of the final property orders – Consideration of s 117 factors – Where the conduct of the husband and second respondent is exceptional – Costs awarded on an indemnity basis in the wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the husband contends that the wife cannot establish that she is unable to support herself and in the alternative that he does not have capacity to meet the orders sought by the wife – Where consideration of s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) factors supports the reasonableness of the wife’s conduct and the quantifications of her needs – Where the husband’s priority as to the wife’s role in being available to care for the primary school aged children of the parties has shifted after separation – Where the husband has sources of financial resources available to him to fund the wife’s claim for maintenance – Orders for interim periodic and non-periodic spousal maintenance made as sought by the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Decision Making and Living Arrangements – Where the father and mother both sought sole decision making authority and for the children to live with them – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the father’s position – Where both the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought that the children spend no time with the mother – Where the Court found that the mother was an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where the Court is not satisfied that supervised contact would ameliorate the unacceptable risk – Where the Court orders that the children spend no time with the mother – Where the Court orders that the father retain sole decision making and the children live with him.

PARENTING – Restraints – Where the father sought the mother be restrained from contacting, approaching within 100 metres of, and posting on social media about him and the children – Where the mother sought similar restraints against the father –Where the Court found that the children’s safety would be promoted by the restraints as sought by the father – Where the Court also made a restraint that the mother cannot direct, cause, encourage or facilitate any third party from attempting any behaviour that she herself is restrained from.

PARENTING – Harmful Proceedings Order – Where the father sought an order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the mother failed to advance a formal position in relation to the exercise of the Court’s authority under the Act – Where the mother’s conduct and constant filing of applications in this Court, caused the Court to find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the father and the children would suffer ‘harm’ if the mother was allowed to instituted further proceedings without leave of the Court – Where the Court makes an order under s 102QAC of the Act – Where the father was silent as to his wishes relating to notification of any future attempted applications by the mother – Where the Court made orders that the father ought to only be notified where an application by the respondent under s 102QAE of the Act has been dismissed by the Court.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – Child’s views – Where the paternal grandmother is awarded sole parental responsibility – Undefended hearing – Where hearing involves high needs child – Circumstances justifying the ICL not meeting with the child.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Where the Applicants seek parenting orders and leave to commence adoption proceedings in the County Court of Victoria pursuant to s 60G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Respondent biological father did not participate in the proceedings – Orders as sought by the Applicants made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Stay of Proceedings – Where the applicant seeks an urgent stay of three orders – Where the respondent opposes any stay – Where the respondent outlines terms she contends the Court should grant if any stay is granted – Where the respondent opposes most of the terms outlined – Where the Court finds that a proper basis for a stay has been made out – Where the Court makes certain orders by consent extending the applicant’s time with the parties child – Where the Court otherwise grants the stay sought without conditions.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objections to subpoena issued at the request of the wife directed to lawyers, an accountant and banks to produce documents – Where the husband and the second to fourth respondents made blanket objection to the inspection of documents produced as to relevance, fishing and abuse of process – Where the husband withdrew a number of objections and the second to fourth respondents reduced their objections by reference to the schedules to the subpoena – Where orders are made to preserve claims of legal professional privilege – Where the objections are upheld in part – Where orders are made amending the schedules to the subpoena – No matters as to principle.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE REASONS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking that one of the parties’ children be permitted to attend Court to meet with the presiding judge – Where the ICL gave evidence that the child had conveyed a wish to meet the judicial officer who will be making decisions about the child – Where the purpose of the proposed meeting would not be for the child to express their views – Where there is no relevant power available – Where orders made requesting that the ICL explain to the child the outcome of the Application – Where the ICL is at liberty to read any aspect of the Reasons to the child if the ICL thinks it is appropriate because it will assist the child – Where the ICL is at liberty to provide these Reasons to the child’s psychologist – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final Orders – Where the husband failed to file and serve his evidence as required by procedural orders – Where the husband attended the final hearing and made few submissions – Where the husband did not contradict the wife’s evidence – Where the wife’s evidence is not accepted in all respects – Where not all of the wife’s liabilities are applied to reduce the net value of her divisible property – Where the wife’s overall entitlement to the parties’ net assets is assessed at 80 per cent – 20 per cent adjustment in the wife’s favour – Orders made entitling the wife to all the known property.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Application for Review of senior judicial registrar’s decision in relation to subpoena issued to Non Party Objector - Where the Application for Review seeks leave to proceed out of time - Consideration of the term "party" in r 14.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) - Joinder of the Non Party Objector to proceedings on limited terms under r 3.04 - Where the Court deems the Application for Review to be an Application in a Proceeding pursuant to r 3.04 - No dispute service of the subpoena had not been effected in accordance with the Rules - Where the Court is satisfied the subpoena issued to the Non Party Objector be struck out - Balance of the Application in a Proceeding stood over - Partial costs order in the Non Party Objector’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting orders were made by consent in 2018 – Where the child is now aged 16 years – Where the applicant seeks the child live with, spend time with and communicate with each parent consistent with her wishes – Where the respondent seeks the child spend time with her to be agreed, in consultation with the child – Where the applicant’s order is made – No order for parental responsibility.

PROPERTY – Where final property orders were made in 2020 – Spousal maintenance – Child support – Issues of disclosure – Superannuation – Complaints by the respondent about the applicant’s solicitor – Payments sought by respondent from applicant – Harmful proceedings order.