Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the principles applicable in an appeal against a discretionary decision are well settled – Where the appellant must establish some error in the decision-making process – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to take into account relevant facts or took into account irrelevant facts – Where the appellant contends the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Where the appellant contends the decision was plainly wrong – Where there is no merit to the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against order permitting the mother to take or send the children overseas – Where previous final orders provided for the children to travel overseas on the provision of 28 days notice and intended itinerary to the other parent – Where the father complains the new order does not retain the notice requirements – Where the primary judge dealt with the point raised by the father – No denial of procedural fairness in the urgent listing – No denial of procedural fairness in making an order beyond those proposed by the parties where the parties had the opportunity for submissions – Formulaic recital of each s 60CC factor not required – Allegations of actual bias – No merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CROSS-APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant contends a factual error as to finding of the value of his bank account – Where the cross-appellant concedes the error, contending that it does not impugn the ultimate determination – Where the error increases the value of the property of the parties by 77 per cent – Where the error of fact permeates, and is material to, each step of the considerations pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) corrupting the justice and equity of the property adjustment determination – Appeal allowed – Determination of the cross-appeal otiose – Matter remitted for re-hearing.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the appellant’s obligation to file a transcript was discharged – Where the appellant submits that the primary judge ignored key financial matters – Where the appellants submits that medical evidence was improperly excluded affecting the primary judge’s adjustments under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal failed to illuminate any appealable error – Where the appellant misapprehends the Court’s jurisdiction and powers – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent sought a costs order against the appellant –Where the respondent sought costs against the appellant in a fixed amount of $36,500 – Where the appeal was withdrawn and dismissed – Consideration of factors under s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is not satisfied there are any circumstances justifying a costs order – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where leave is required to appeal from orders of the primary judge discharging a stay of de facto threshold proceedings pending finalisation of the appellant’s criminal trial – Where the appellant is charged with serious historical sexual offences of the respondent’s twin daughters – Consideration of the right to silence – The applicable appellate standard of review – Waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination – Where the primary judge failed to identify the correct test to revisit an interlocutory order – Where the primary judge acted inconsistently with the maintenance of the privilege against self-incrimination and was plainly wrong to conclude the appellant would not be prejudiced if the civil trial preceded the criminal trial – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Contributions – Primary judge erred by assuming equality as a starting point in assessing the parties’ contributions –Where no principle or presumption of equality of contributions exists in property settlement cases – Whether error of principle contributed to errors of approach to fact-finding – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for a rehearing before of a judge of Division 2 other than the primary judge.

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where appellant sought s 102NA order on the day of the trial – Where appellant sought for the matter to be determined on the papers at trial – Where matter was determined on the papers at trial – Where appellant contends the primary judge failed to afford her procedural fairness – Whether primary judge made factual error due to determining the matter on the papers.

APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where appellant seeks adduce further evidence that she intends to relocate to Australia – Where the evidence was available at the time of trial – Where the evidence could have been adduced at the trial – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Harmful Proceedings – Where the primary judge made final parenting orders and restrained the parties from instituting further proceedings – Where the applicant sought the grant of leave to appeal from the orders of the primary judge – Where the applicant challenges orders made with his consent – Where the applicant advances weight arguments – Where the applicant complains of legal error – Where all grounds of appeal are bereft of merit – Where the appeal is vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Meaning of “interlocutory order” – Where the primary judge made orders summarily dismissing the creditor’s claim pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the creditor requires leave to appeal orders summarily dismissing the s 79 claim – Orders summarily dismissing s 79 proceedings are “interlocutory orders” for the purposes of seeking leave to appeal – Leave to appeal required – Leave to appeal refused. 

APPEAL – PROPERTY – Rights of third parties – Rights of creditors intervening in property settlement proceedings – Consideration of “matrimonial cause” – Where the creditor seeks to pursue a s 79 claim independently of a spouse of the marriage –Whether a creditor can pursue property settlement orders where there is no pending claim by a spouse of the marriage – Whether rights of a spouse under s 79 can be pursued by a creditor in the absence of extant proceedings – Whether a creditor’s rights are limited to the procedural rights of a party either supporting or opposing the orders sought by a spouse of the marriage – Claims under s 79 are limited to proceedings which constitute a “matrimonial cause” – Section 79 only applies where a claim is brought under circumstances arising out of a marital relationship – Creditor’s application to pursue a s 79 claim independently of spouses dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Summary dismissal – Where the appellant attempts to relitigate matters dealt with in previous proceedings not the subject of appeal – Where the primary judge was entitled to rely on the permanent stay granted in the previous proceedings – Where the appeal has no prospects of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an appeal to adduce further evidence – Where the appellant alleges apprehended bias and a denial of procedural fairness on the part of the primary judge – Application in an appeal dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Costs fixed in favour of the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant appeals orders made in Part VII proceedings – Where the appeal is opposed by the respondent – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed a Submitting Notice and did not seek to be heard – Where the eight grounds as submitted by the appellant are not instantly recognisable as a ground of appeal as opposed to a complaint as to outcome – Where the decision of the primary judge is from an exercise of a wide discretion – Where the appeal is without merit, has been unsuccessful and had no utility – Appeal dismissed – Order for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant appeals final parenting orders – Where the primary judge found that each party had perpetrated family violence and that the bests interests of the children necessitated a change of residence and sole parental responsibility from the appellant to the respondent – Where the appellant contends a denial of procedural fairness and apprehended bias – Where the appeal was opposed by the respondent and initially opposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the respondent contends the learned judge applied the incorrect law but that application of the correct law to the primary judge’s findings of fact would lead to the same result – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer in submissions conceded that there had been an error of law and that the appeal must be allowed – Where the primary judge erred at law by considering section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as amended – Appeal allowed – Proceedings remitted for re-hearing – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Whether the primary judge’s decision is plainly wrong – Whether the orders made were plainly unreasonable and unjust or proper having regard to the findings of fact that were made – Whether orders were made in accordance with the legislative requirements promoting safety and the protection from violence – Whether the primary judge failed to give proper consideration to alternative proposed orders – Where no error demonstrated – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife appeals against a fixed costs order made after a contested final hearing – Where it is argued that the parties were not afforded procedural fairness – Where parties were not aware a fixed costs order was in contemplation – Where parties were therefore not able to make submissions regarding a fixed costs order – Appeal allowed and matter re-determined.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders – Where the appellant asserts that it was not just and equitable for a property adjustment to be made – Contention that the trial judge failed to include potential Capital Gains Tax liabilities and interim payments ordered in the property pool – Assertion of error when determining contributions – Contention that there was no basis for a s 90SF(3) adjustment – Inadequate reasons – Examination of principles regarding Capital Gains Tax – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Divorce – Application in an Appeal – Stay – Where the wife’s appeal from a divorce order was dismissed – Where by operation of s 55 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the divorce order was to take effect one month after that dismissal – Where on the final day the wife served upon the Court an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and filed an application seeking the stay of the dismissal of her appeal and the divorce order pending the disposition of her application for special leave – Where an application for special leave is made pursuant to s 55 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and s 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and is not an “appeal” for the purposes of s 55 of the Act – Where the divorce order has since become operable by force of statute – Where it is now impossible to grant the stay she seeks – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Vexatious Proceedings – Application for leave governed by s 102QE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the orders the applicant seeks to challenge are not materially different from the applicant's own minute of order – Where the applicant advances no reasonable grounds for the proposed appeal – Where the proposed appeal is vexatious and the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed – No orders as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from the primary judge’s decision to summarily dismiss her parenting application – Where judgment in New Zealand family law proceedings (“New Zealand proceedings”) was reserved at the time of the primary judge’s decision and the appeal was filed, but has since been delivered – Where the mother attempted to initiate proceedings by relying upon her status as an Australia citizen who now resides in Western Australia – Where the father is the biological parent of one child but not the other – Where the children have lived predominantly with the father in New Zealand since 2018 – Where the mother’s generic complaint about the Family Court of Western Australia and the law is not a competent ground of appeal – Where the mother could not verify the allegation that the primary judge admitted bias – Where the mother provides no rational explanation for why she asserts the orders in New Zealand are unlawful – Where the primary judge found the mother’s application was an abuse of process and the Court was a clearly inappropriate forum to hear the parenting dispute – Where any factual error made by the primary judge about the findings made in the New Zealand proceedings does not vitiate the decision – Where the mother’s belief the appeal raises issues of jurisdiction and Constitutionality is not proof of fact – Where the mother’s Application in an Appeal and oral application to adduce further evidence in the appeal are dismissed as being futile – Where the mother’s oral application to rescind previous interlocutory appellate orders is dismissed – Where the mother’s oral application to appeal from the recently pronounced final orders in the New Zealand proceedings is dismissed – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Where appellant argues that amount of overcapitalisation was greater than that conceded by the respondent at trial – Where appellant argues the primary judge erred in accepting the concession of the respondent that the overcapitalisation was around $500,000 – Where appellant claims that the Court should make an assessment based on the use of funds during the relationship as opposed to initial contributions – Where appellant argues primary judge failed to properly exercise discretion – Consideration of authorities on overcapitalisation – Where no detailed argument or authorities regarding overcapitalisation were put to the primary judge – Ground of appeal not established – No error of discretion as per House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 established – Appeal dismissed – Costs awarded.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge made an order that final parenting orders be reconsidered – Where the primary judge found s 65DAAA did not require a change in circumstances for the reconsideration of final parenting orders – Where the subsequent Full Court decision in Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 (“Radecki”) rendered the primary judge’s construction of s 65DAAA erroneous – Where the respondent contended Radecki should not be followed – Where the Full Court decision is binding – Discussion of Radecki and the codification of Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where the appeal is flawed as the order is not a judgment from which an appeal lies – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Where the Magistrate dismissed the father’s application to vary final parenting orders – Where the father alleges the Magistrate made an error of law by taking extraneous material into account – Where the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) permits material on which existing final parenting orders were based to be considered when deciding whether final parenting orders should be re-opened – Where the Magistrate informed the parties of the intention to take the single expert report into account and gave them the opportunity to be heard – Where the father contends the Magistrate misapplied the Act – Where the father contended his changes circumstances, including his new living arrangements, the child’s wishes and some improvement in the state of his mental health, were sufficient to justify fresh litigation – Where the Magistrate concluded the changes in circumstance asserted by the father, individually and in aggregation, did not justify the reconsideration of the final parenting orders – Application dismissed – Application for costs in the sum of $1,000 granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where procedural orders made less than a week ago anticipating the appeal would be heard by the Full Court no earlier than August 2025 – Where the appeal can be heard in late May 2025 – Where the appellant opposes the earlier hearing dates when she is without legal representation – Where the desire of the mother for legal representation is not the dispositive consideration – Where the desire of the father for prompt determination of the appeal must also be accommodated – Orders made – Appeal hearing fixed for May 2025 – Procedural Orders varied.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show Cause – Where the appeal was listed for the appellant to show cause why it should not be summarily dismissed – Where the appellant alleges corruption by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the appellant complains of perjury by the respondent – Where the appellant alleges threats made by the respondent’s father – Where the grounds of appeal do not allege any legal, factual or discretionary error by the primary judge – Where the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from parenting orders – Where the appellant submits the primary judge has misrepresented facts in direct bias, wilfully misapplied evidence, wilfully ignored objections to evidence, intentionally misrepresented facts in favour of the other party, and intentionally misrepresented facts against the children – Dissatisfaction with outcomes does not amount to bias – Where none of the appeal grounds have been established – Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant’s appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the appeal grounds were unmeritorious and the appellant made unjustified and serious allegations to impugn the primary judge – Where the incomprehensible aspects of the appeal contributed to the respondent’s costs – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL –SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Appeal from declaratory order – Appellants beneficiaries of testamentary trust – coversheet of Notice of Appeal naming wrong party as appellant – Where the first respondent sought summary dismissal of the appeal – Where the appellants sought leave to amend Note of Appeal – Application for summary dismissal dismissed – leave to amend granted

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of registrar’s decision as to filing of documents – Where the substantive appeal has been heard and dismissed – Where the court no longer has jurisdiction to deal with procedural decisions of the registrar made prior to the appeal – Where the respondent seeks a vexatious proceedings order in relation to the applicant – Where the Response suffers the same jurisdictional flaw – Where the applicant is aware of the difficulties with running meritless applications – Where the applicant seeks to relitigate the issues determined by the primary judge and upheld on appeal – Order for the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Summary dismissal – Where the Amended Notice of Appeal contains four well recognised potential errors – Where the particulars of the grounds suggest there may be difficulty in succeeding on the appeal – Where it cannot be said the appeal has no prospects of success – Application for summary dismissal dismissed – Appellant’s application for an adjournment dismissed given the application was decided in her favour.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – Where the father appealed from all final parenting and property orders – Where his appeal was deemed abandoned due to his failure to file the transcript on time – Where the father asserted the delay was modest – Where the father admitted the entirety of the transcript had still not been filed – Where the appeal appears to have no merit – Where the father could not show some miscarriage of justice ostensibly resulted from his allegedly incompetent legal representation at trial – Where there was nothing unusual about the expert witnesses altering their opinion during cross-examination when confronted with new factual evidence – Where simple dissatisfaction with add-back findings is not a competent ground of appeal – Where the Magistrate acknowledged how add-backs were the exception rather than the rule – Where the father did not seek any adjournment of the trial on account of the alleged late financial disclosure by the mother and he suffered no consequential prejudice – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of Transcript – Where the appellant seeks that the court provides the transcript – Whether transcript is necessary for appellant’s case – Application for the Court to provide transcript refused – Appellant relieved of obligation to provide the transcript – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where final parenting orders were made by the parties’ consent – Where no ground of appeal argues the orders impeached the anterior agreement reached between the parties – Where no ground of appeal alleges the magistrate was bereft of jurisdiction or power to make the consent orders – Where no ground of appeal alleges the appellant’s consent of the orders was inveigled or induced by fraud, mistake or some other fundamental misunderstanding – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where a 10 per cent s 75(2) adjustment was made in favour of the respondent – Where the appellant contended that he was not afforded procedural fairness to make submissions on the s 75(2) adjustment – Where the parties were afforded the opportunity to make submissions about the relevant issues – Where the appellant contends that the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate – Where the matters taken into account by the primary judge were clearly articulated and sufficiently described – Where the appellant contended that the s 75(2) adjustment was “manifestly excessive” – Where the orders made were not outside of the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge failed to accord him procedural fairness on the form of the orders made – Where the form of the primary judge’s order was not materially different to the orders sought by the respondent – Where the form of the primary judge’s orders were within the parameters established by the parties’ positions – Appeal dismissed – Written submissions ordered on the question of costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the applicant seeks review of the decision of the appeal registrar to reject his Notice of Appeal for filing – Where the applicant incorrectly claimed an exemption from payment of the filing fee for his Notice of Appeal – Where the time for filing an appeal then expired – Where the applicant was advised he could file an Application in an Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal – Where the applicant instead sought judicial review – Where the Notice of Appeal was correctly rejected – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Narrow ground of appeal regarding valuation of a business – Whether the primary judge erred in adopting the new valuation of the business – Where the appellant alleged it was incorrect to change one element of the valuation without changing others – Where it is common for experts to express opinions on assumptions put to them – Where the appropriate weight for an expert’s answer is a matter for the court – Where the appellant failed to challenge the new valuation at trial – Where there was no evidence to draw a Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 inference from – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL Parenting – Where the appellant seeks leave to appeal against an order made dismissing his application to re-open parenting proceedings – Consideration as to whether s 65DAAA codifies the rule in In the marriage of Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 (“the rule in Rice and Asplund”) – Clarification of the principles which apply to applications under s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the wording of s 65DAAA creates a meaningful distinction and departure from application of common law principles – Whether the Court is still required to make a finding about changed circumstances or alternatively, merely “consider” whether or not there has been any change – Where parliament’s intention was to codify the rule in Rice and Asplund – Where a literal interpretation of the wording of s 65DAAA is at odds with the purpose of the statute and leads to absurdity – No discernible difference between the threshold to be applied under the new statutory regime and the common law principles espoused by the rule in Rice and Asplund – Appealable error established – Leave to appeal granted – Remitted for rehearing of the application under s 65DAAA – Costs certificate granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where an injunction was previously made prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer without leave – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from two decisions of the primary judge in relation to parenting matters and her application to reopen the proceedings to adduce further evidence – Where the proposed appeals lack reasonable grounds and are therefore vexatious and are devoid of utility– Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant appeals from a costs order made against him arising from parenting proceedings – Where the respondent conceded the appeal in part – Where the remaining grounds allege bias and errors in reasons – No bias or errors identified – Application in an appeal to adduce further evidence – Where the material the appellant sought to adduce was not relevant to the grounds of appeal – Application dismissed – Appeal allowed in part – Respondent’s application for costs remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the primary judge made orders compelling the parties’ child to be returned to Belgium – Where the child was born in Belgium and is a Belgian citizen – Where the child was wrongfully removed by the appellant mother to Australia – Whether the primary judge erred in determining the child was habitually resident in Belgium – Where the primary judge carefully applied the principles in LK v Director-General, Department of Community Services (2009) 237 CLR 582 – Where the Belgian court had already exercised jurisdiction in respect of the child – Where the findings of the primary judge were well-founded in the evidence – Appeal dismissed – No application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Contravention – Summary dismissal – Where judgment is not a “prescribed judgment” pursuant to reg 4.02 of the Federal Court and Federal Circuit and Family Court Regulations 2022 (Cth) – Leave to appeal not required – Where appellant asserts primary judge erred in concluding compliance with Orders 8 and 9 were preconditions for spending time in Orders 29(a) and Order 29(c) – Where appellant argues primary judge erred in summarily dismissing application due to lack of evidence – Primary judge erred in determining compliance with Order 8 and Order 9 were preconditions for time in accordance with Order 29(a) – Primary judge’s intention was for Orders to function methodically upon preconditions being satisfied – Orders amended to reflect intention of primary judge pursuant to the slip rule – Appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence – No grounds of appeal challenging orders established – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Stay – Expedition – Where the mother appeals from final parenting orders – Where the primary judge made supplementary orders dismissing the mother’s Application in an Appeal to stay the final orders – Where the primary judge did not have jurisdiction or power to hear and determine an application filed in the appellate jurisdiction – Supplementary orders set aside – Where neither party will be personally prejudiced by the refusal of the stay application – Where the mother’s belief the refusal of the stay application will be detrimental to the children is not objective proof of the fact – Where the mother did not pursue her expedition application – Where the parties are mutually satisfied if appeal is heard by April 2025 as anticipated – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition – Where the father seeks expedition of his appeal from interim orders for the parties’ children to live with the mother from mid-January 2025 – Where the orders would require the children to relocate from Queensland to Western Australia – Where the matter is set down for final hearing in April 2025 – Where the father took one month to file his expedition application – Where the father’s argument that the appealed orders do not promote the children’s best interest is not convincing – Where the father will suffer no personal prejudice if the appeal takes its normal course – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – SUMMARY DISMISSAL – Where before the primary judge the applicant sought to rely on a previously dismissed Amended Application in a Proceeding and to review a Registrar’s decision – Where proposed grounds of appeal are expressed generally without reference to any particular order – Where there is no basis for any of the proposed grounds of appeal – Where no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave to appeal – Where applicant does not have reasonable prospects of prosecuting the application for leave to appeal – Application for leave to appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from property settlement orders – Where the appellant has a shareholding in a corporation – Where the primary judge erred at law by fixing the parties with joint and several liability for a tax debt owed by the corporation – Where the tax debt is an exclusive liability of the corporation – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Self-represented parties – No application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Where the Notice of Appeal is prolix and vexatious in its current form – Where many of the grounds of appeal assert the primary judge erred by failing to accept the appellant’s case – Where it is inherently unlikely that a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) would make hundreds of errors material enough to vitiate the reasons – Notice of Appeal struck out – Where the appellant has leave to lodge an Amended Notice of Appeal for further consideration.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Property – Limited evidence available to the primary judge – Where no retrospective valuation of the farming property was conducted by an appropriately qualified expert –– Consideration of s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the factual error was material to the outcome of proceedings – Appeal allowed – Orders of the primary judge set aside – Matter remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge – Costs certificate granted to the appellant.

FAMILY LAW – REVIEW OF SENIOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR’S DECISION – Interim parenting orders made for the child to spend unsupervised time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties’ relationship was 11 years in length – Whether various addbacks should be included in the property pool – Where the de facto husband made greater contributions than those of the de facto wife –– Where the children of the relationship live with the de facto wife – Where there is an income disparity between the parties – Where the Court considers there should be an adjustment in favour of the de facto wife pursuant to s 90SM(3) – Two pool approach – Where the Court makes final orders for property settlement to effect a 52 percent division in favour of the de facto husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation with respect to parenting issues – Where the child has been exposed to parental conflict – Where the child has only spent supervised time with the Father since late 2022 – Where at the commencement of the trial the Mother sought that the child’s time with the Father continue to be professionally supervised – Where the Mother significantly modified that position by the conclusion of the trial – Where the issues in dispute between the parents are relatively narrow – Where a finding cannot be made that the Father used coercive or controlling behaviour – Where by the conclusion of the trial a finding is not sought that the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the care of the Father – Where both parents seek the restoration of the child’s relationship with the Father through a therapeutic process – Where therapeutic process has been commenced pursuant to interim orders made on the last day of the trial – Where travel to Country B has been a significant and ongoing issue between the parents – Where neither parent is found to be a flight risk – Where international travel will assist the child to build a relationship with extended family and engage with aspects of their culture – Where orders made for the parents to have joint responsibility for decision-making with respect to all major long-term issues – Where orders made for the parties and the child to continue to participate in family therapy and for the Father and child to undertake therapeutic contact – Where orders made for staged and gradually increasing unsupervised time with the Father – Where orders made for school holiday time with the Father to commence with the last stage of unsupervised time – Where orders made for time with each parent on special occasions – Where orders made for international travel and the location of the child’s passport – Where certain restraints on the parents made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY