Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Procedural fairness – Statements by judge that the Court would force 14 year old to resume residence with a parent prior to hearing argument on that issue – Apprehended bias established.

PARENTING – Application to vary final parenting orders – Whether “significant change in circumstances” as required by s 65DAAA – 15 months of no contact with former resident parent a “significant change in circumstances” within the meaning of s 65DAAA.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the primary judge set aside subpoenas issued by the father seeking records related to the mother’s employment – Where the mother’s work rosters and timesheets could only be rationally relevant to her spare capacity to primarily care for the children – Where the trial of the parenting cause is now complete – Where the proposed appeal in so far as it relates to the parenting cause is futile – Where the trial as to the financial cause is yet to commence – Where the primary judge perhaps fell into legal error by dismissing the subpoenas in the financial cause but the father cannot demonstrate how he suffers substantial injustice by the decision – Where the father’s complaint as to the quantum of a costs order is false – Leave to appeal refused – Application to adduce further evidence dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant challenges an order to pay the costs of an intervener on an indemnity basis in s 79 proceedings – Where none of the prosecuted grounds of appeal have merit – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the father’s complaint his counsel at trial was so incompetent to have caused a miscarriage of justice is rejected – Where the primary judge found the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and the mother – Where the father’s bare assertion the primary judge erred in the application of legal principle and gave inadequate reasons fails – Where the primary judge did not make any error in making orders that require permanent supervision of the time the child spends with the father – Where the father’s complaint the primary judge failed to consider the child’s views is false – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s legal aid costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant is the child’s former step-father – Where the first respondent is the child’s biological mother – Where the second respondent is the child’s putative biological father and did not participate in the primary proceedings or appellate proceedings – Where the appeal does not raise any question of general principle – Where the appellant pleaded guilty to stalking the first respondent early in their relationship – Where the trial judge found the appellant to have continued to commit family violence during and after the relationship – Where the trial judge found that the appellant posed an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the trial judge found that the passage of time had not lessened the risk – Where the trial judge found that the risk could be mitigated by infrequent supervised time with the child – Where the further amended Notice of Appeal contended a denial of procedural fairness, errors of law and a failure to give reasons – Where the appellant’s Summary of Argument addressed grounds of appeal which were not raised in his further amended Notice of Appeal – Where the appellant was confined to the grounds in his further amended Notice of Appeal – Where there was no merit to any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders – Where the appellant’s factual challenges as to the value of the respondent’s minority interest in a corporation and as to discretionary error have no merit – Where the appellant establishes that the primary judge was in error in not attributing a positive value to the respondent’s interests in a self-managed superannuation fund – Where the primary judge conflated the financial circumstances of differing corporations at differing times relevant to the finding under challenge – Appeal allowed in part – Where the matter is remitted limited to specific issues to obtain an updated valuation of the respondent’s interests in the self-managed superannuation fund and thereafter for a superannuation splitting order pursuant to s 90XT of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Costs certificates for the appeal and limited remitter.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Harmful proceedings order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 28 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) constitutes an application in a proceeding under the Family Law Act for the purposes of s 102QAC – Where an appeal constitutes an incidental proceeding and is subject to a s 102QAC order – Where leave is required – Where the applicant alleges error in the primary judge’s refusal to restrain the wife’s counsel and solicitors from representing her – Where the wife’s counsel had been representing her in the proceedings for 10 years – Where a solicitor previously employed at the firm representing the applicant is alleged to have commenced employment at the firm representing the wife – Where no proper basis is disclosed for such restraint – Where none of the proposed grounds of appeal have merit – Where the proposed application for leave to appeal falls within the definition of a “vexatious proceeding” for the purposes of s 102QAF(2) – Leave to appeal refused.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the self-represented appellant requests a further adjournment for six months for medical reasons and lack of legal representation – Where the medical reports relied upon are inconsistent with the appellant’s conduct in preparing and filing documents in the appeal – Where the appellant did not adduce evidence as to incapacity to re-engage legal representation – Where adjournment of the appeal will cause prejudice to the respondent – Adjournment application refused – Where the appellant did not further participate in the appeal hearing and the appeal was thereafter adjourned for a short period – Appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s fixed costs thrown away

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks to review the appeal judicial registrar’s decision to dismiss his application seeking an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal – Where the Court is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated an arguable case on appeal – Where none of the grounds of appeal have merit – Where the granting of the extension would be an exercise in futility – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Asset preservation injunction – The husband alleged the magistrate provided inadequate reasons for granting the wife the injunctive relief against the husband – The Court emphasised that an applicant for injunctive relief must establish that there is a real risk of assets being disposed of and that, as a result of that risk, there is a real ground for believing that the applicant will be prejudiced in the remedy they are seeking – The magistrate failed to outline principles regarding issuing injunctive orders – Leave to appeal granted as the appellant would suffer substantial injustice if leave were not granted, as they would face hardship due to the effect of the interim injunctions – Appeal ground allowed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Cross appellant company appealed anti-suit injunction – When assessing whether to grant the anti-suit injunction, the magistrate took a ‘holistic approach’ to the parties’ circumstances – Court held that the appropriate test in determining whether to make an anti-suit injunction order is whether the court “was a clearly inappropriate forum” not an assessment of the more convenient forum. – Leave to appeal granted as depriving an entity of its legal rights without proper justification amounts to substantial injustice – Appeal ground allowed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Spousal maintenance – Where the husband contended the magistrate failed to take into account material considerations – Where the husband argued the magistrate should have taken into account the wife’s access to funds post-separation – The Court held that the fact that a party has access to a lump sum amount of the collective marital property is not, in itself, a disentitling factor to an order of spousal maintenance if the expenditure has been or will be accounted for – The lump sum was no longer available to the wife to meet her weekly needs – The Court emphasised that there was no requirement for the wife to extend her credit card debt to establish she was unable to adequately support herself – The magistrate’s failure to refer to relatively insignificant amounts of funds drawn on by the wife was held not to have impacted upon the magistrate’s assessment of the wife’s capacity to adequately support herself – Appeal ground dismissed.,

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Spousal maintenance – Where the husband contended that the magistrate failed to recognise that part of his declared income was a non-cash fringe benefit and should not have been included in his total income – The magistrate was not obliged to break down husband’s income into cash and non-cash benefits, particularly where they were not requested to do so by any argument presented by the husband – Where the husband contended the magistrate erred by failing to assess the weekly quantum of payments ordered by the magistrate and their impact on surplus income – Court held the magistrate adequately considered the payments – Appeal ground dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SHOW CAUSE HEARING – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal interlocutory orders – Where the orders do not constitute a judgment from which an appeal may lie – Where the orders do not determine any party’s rights – Where the appellant failed to show cause as to why the Notice of Appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where s 60CA and the best interests of the child are inapplicable – Where an order for the appointment of a single expert to prepare a Family Report is not a parenting order pursuant to s 64B – Where leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Appeal is dismissed – Where the appellant must pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where appellant alleges the primary judge failed to uphold procedural fairness, natural justice, and mishandled the conduct of the hearing – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge intimidated counsel and ‘abused’ their discretion – Where appellant alleges the primary judge was biased and failed to recuse themselves – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge failed to properly assess the available evidence – Where the appellant alleges the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Appeal dismissed – Appellant failed to establish any unfairness in the case management rulings made by the primary judge – The primary hearing was conducted fairly – The primary judge’s firm instruction that the appellant follow courtroom decorum is not a punitive or biased act – The primary judge’s involvement in an internal Court committee did not support a reasonable apprehension of bias – Appellant’s contentious exchange with the primary judge did not create actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias – The primary judge’s findings were reasonably open on the evidence – The primary judge provided adequate reasons – Appellant wholly unsuccessful – Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent on a party and party basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge found that the child was at an unacceptable risk in the appellant’s care – Where the appellant challenged final orders permitting the other parent to relocate internationally with the child – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – where the appellant seeks to adjourn the hearing of the appeal – where the appellant is attending a mediation with NCAT on the date of the hearing of the appeal – where the application is granted – where the hearing of the appeal is adjourned for one day

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the applicant requests an adjournment for six months for medical reasons – Where the applicant has also filed an application for a stay before the primary judge – Where the respondent will suffer prejudice if the stay is successful and the appeal is adjourned – Where the applicant is without legal representation – Where the applicant has not adduced evidence as to any incapacity to re-engage legal representation for the purposes of the appeal – Where the medical evidence adduced by the applicant fails to address the central question for the purposes of the application for the adjournment of the appeal, being whether the applicant’s health challenges prevent her from preparing for and attending on the appeal – Application in an Appeal dismissed – Respondent’s costs of the Application in an Appeal are costs in the appellate cause.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the appellant seeks access to the full transcript of the primary proceedings at the Court’s cost, a subpoena be issued to NSW Police and leave to adduce further evidence on appeal – Where the application seeking leave to adduce further evidence on appeal is adjourned to the hearing of the substantive appeal – Where the appellant has purchased the transcript for one of the trial days – Where the appellant contends financial hardship prevents her from purchasing the balance of the transcript – Where the Court provides the transcript to litigants at its own cost only in exceptional circumstances – Where the transcript is not required for the vast number of sub-grounds of appeal as prosecuted by the appellant – Request for the Court to provide the transcript at its own cost refused – Extension of time granted for the appellant to elect to purchase the remaining transcripts and file her Summary of Argument and List of Authorities – Where the subpoena subject to leave as constructed by the appellant would be an abuse of process on appeal – Application in an Appeal refused in part.

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 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – PROPERTY – Binding Financial Agreement – Application by husband that the Binding Financial Agreement entered into with the wife be set aside pursuant to s 90K(1)(b) and (e) and s 90KA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether it would be unjust and inequitable if the Financial Agreement was not declared binding on the parties – Consideration of unconscionable conduct – Consideration of undue influence – Consideration of special/disadvantage/disability – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where limited issues in dispute – Where parties agreed for child to continue living with mother in Australia – Where father resides in USA – Consideration of s 60CC factors – Order for the mother to provide notice if relocating the child’s residence – Order for three-week school holiday block – Order for father to spend Easter holiday time with the child as culturally significant holiday – Order for father to pay deposit bond when travelling refused – Order for mother to return expired passport to father.