Judgments

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Interim application made by the third respondent to restrain the wife’s current solicitors from continuing to act for her – Where the third respondent and the husband each had brief telephone conversations with the wife’s current solicitors prior to the wife engaging those solicitors – Where the court is not satisfied that the wife’s solicitors received confidential information which might imperil the interests of the third respondent – Where the interests of justice considerations favour the wife being permitted to continue to engage her solicitors – Application to restrain the wife’s solicitors from continuing to act dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final Orders – Where each of the parties have made a myriad of financial and non-financial contributions over a 30 year marriage – Where the wife contends contribution-based finding of 60 per cent in her favour due to homemaker duties and caring responsibilities – Where the husband contends a contribution-based finding of 55 per cent in his favour due to direct financial contributions of himself, financial contributions of his family, and contributions to the business – Where each of the parties contend a further adjustment pursuant to s 79(5) of the Act.

PROPERTY – Family violence – Where each party contends the other perpetrated family violence – Where there was no cross-examination on allegations of family violence – Where neither counsel sought to identify in submissions the evidence that would support the requisite finding – Where the Court adopts the same approach and does not have regard to it.

PROPERTY – Non-financial contributions of family members – Where each of the parties assert that non-financial contributions were made by the other party’s parents both in support of the parties’ children and the husband – Consideration of s 79(4) of the Act – Where s 79(4)(c) of the Act directs to contributions by a party – Where neither grandparent is a party.

PROPERTY – Characterisation of advancement of monies as loan or gift – Where the husband contends $1 million was loaned from his mother– Where the parties are at issue as to whether it was a loan or gift – Where the wife agreed for the monies to be returned to his mother – Where the husband’s mother asserted it was a loan to both parties and was paid back – Where the husband’s mother was not required for cross-examination – Where the Court accepts her evidence – Where it was a loan to both parties and interest was paid, the Court was not satisfied that the husband gets the sole benefit of it as contribution on his behalf.

PROPERTY – Waste – Where the wife contended that the husband had expended a large sum of money on his hobbies related to the keeping of fish and birds – Where the wife contended that this constituted waste in circumstances where the money was devoted solely to the husband’s benefit and not to the benefit of the family – Where there was no evidence as to the quantum applied by the husband to this hobby – Where the elements of waste were not established.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - where both parents are afflicted by mental illness - where the child lives with the applicant and spends regular time with the respondent - where the applicant wishes to reside with the child overseas - where the applicant asserted that she and the child would receive more financial and emotional support overseas - where the applicant's assertions were not borne out on the evidence - where the applicant's affidavit was inaccurate and inconsistent with her oral evidence - where it was found that the child's best interests are promoted by the child remaining in Australia with the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Where the majority of issues have been settled by consent – Where the remaining issues requiring determination are narrow –Where it is determined the father is not a flight risk – Where a Family Law Watchlist order will not be made – Where the father will not be required to pay a security bond – Where a limit on overseas travel will not be imposed – Where there will not be a restriction on holidaying in or transiting through non-Hague Convention countries – Where once the child turns 12 she will be able to be accompanied overseas with the persons nominated by the father – Where an order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where each of the parents contended at the commencement of the trial that the other posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the safety of the children – Where the maternal grandmother also sought parenting orders – Where the mother contended that the maternal grandmother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the safety of the children – Where the proceeding consumed a disproportionate amount of judicial and administrative resources in Division 2 prior to transfer including the preparation of four family reports – Where allegations are made as to physical and psychological abuse occasioned to the children, neglect, family violence, engaging the children in and exposing them to unrelenting entrenched conflict between the adults – Where a child has been unilaterally retained by each of the father and the maternal grandmother – Where at the conclusion of the trial the parties agreed that the mother would have sole decision-making authority in respect of all major long-term issues for the children and that the children would live with the mother – Orders made that the children not spend time with the father – Orders made for the father to communicate with the children – Orders made that the maternal grandmother not spend time with or communicate with the children – s 68B injunctions made – Injunction restraining the mother from legally changing the children’s surnames.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – Consideration of the conjunctive threshold tests in s 90SK and s 90SD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where a person who is ordinarily resident is a question of fact – Where the parties spent four periods aggregating 12 months out of their 13-year relationship in Australia and spent the remaining 12 years living in Europe – Where the applicant fails to establish that she was ordinarily resident in a participating jurisdiction at the date of the application for s 90SM and s 90SE orders – Where the applicant did not make substantial contributions in a participating jurisdiction – Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs of the proceedings on indemnity basis and in the alternative party/party costs – Consideration of relevant principles under s 117 of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied there are justifying circumstances to make an order for costs – Consideration of indemnity costs – Circumstances do not justify indemnity costs – Application for costs on the costs application refused – Costs to be paid as agreed or assessed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives - Best interests of child - Where consent orders are proposed pending delivery of judgment – Where orders pending judgment were not followed - Whether consent orders are in the children’s best interests - Where the children hold strong views as to whom they should live with – Where the father poses a risk of psychological harm – Where the father does not pose a sexual risk – Where it is still in the children’s best interests to live with the father in accordance with their views.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Section 65DAAA – Change of Circumstances – Where the father frequently travels overseas to attend to family and has been absent from child’s life for some time – Where relationship with father broken down – Where the Child does not wish to maintain relationship with father – Where father has taken no steps to ameliorate the relationship.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the respondent mother seeks to set aside orders made ex parte in her absence – where the Court discharges orders made on 9 September 2025 in circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure of all facts relevant to the application.

PARENTING – INTERIM PARENTING – Where the father makes allegations of family violence against the mother – Where the father makes allegations as to the mother’s parenting capacity – Where the Court is concerned that the father makes allegations in circumstances where the father has failed to make full and frank disclosure of all facts relevant to the application – Where the Court finds that the mother does not present a risk of harm to the children – Where the Court finds that the mother was the children’s primary carer.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child lives with the mother and has spent limited time with the father since separation – Where the father suffers from a substance use disorder – Where the father has remained abstinent since May 2023 – Where the father has meaningfully engaged with support services – Where the mother submits that the father is an unacceptable risk to the child by reason of the risk of him relapsing – Orders made – The father to spend time with the child graduating to four nights each fortnight and half of all school holidays – Where issues arose during the hearing regarding the vaccination beliefs of the parties – Orders made – Mother to have sole decision-making authority.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Final child support departure orders and costs orders – Where the parties have concurrent parenting proceedings – Where final orders required the Father pay 100 per cent of the children’s extra-curricular activities – Where no evidence the Father agreed in writing to the children participating in one of the extra-curricular activities – Where the Father deposed to having no funds from which to meet his obligations – Risk of bankruptcy – Injunction pursuant to s 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether it is just and convenient for the Court to make an injunction restraining the Father from overseas travel in aid of enforcing the financial orders – Declaration made pursuant to r 11.07(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Application for injunction dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory application – Final property settlement orders made in August 2025 – Where the respondent is personally indebted to two organisations for legal fees – Where the proceeds of sale (“the proceeds”) of one property is held on trust pending resolution of the dispute over distribution of the proceeds – Where the organisations refuse to withdraw caveats over a second property until the debts are satisfied – Where the applicant seeks an order compelling the respondent to pay the organisations from her share of the sale proceeds – Where the final orders require the respondent to bear her own debts – Where the respondent’s share of the proceeds is sufficient to satisfy her legal debts – Orders made directing payment from the proceeds to discharge the respondent’s debts – Order made for the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs on a party/party basis in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the parties had a 20-year relationship – Where the wife has in interest in two properties in Country B – Where the wife argued that the Country B properties represented a “financial resource” as opposed to “property” – Where the Court finds that the Country B properties are amenable to an order for adjustment – Where the Court finds that the ordinary principles applicable under s 79 of the Act apply.

PROPERTY - Where the parties were the beneficiary of rent-free accommodation as a consequence of the generosity of the maternal family during the relationship – Where the Court finds that such generosity represents a significant contribution on behalf of the wife.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where no application made pursuant to s 7 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1991 (Cth) – Where the husband had no evidence to meet s 102C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or rr 15.16 and 15.17 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY OF MARRIAGE – Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment – Whether the respondent was already married at the time of his marriage to the applicant – Where the respondent held a genuine though mistaken belief that he was legally divorced from his first wife – Where the respondent filed a submitting notice – Where the applicant and respondent intend to continue their relationship – Where there is a child of the relationship – Where the applicant seeks to regularise her status.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conflict of interest – Where the legal practitioner acts for both applicant and respondent – Where a submitting notice is filed on behalf of the respondent – Where an affidavit by the respondent is filed by the applicant – Where the legal practitioner caused the respondent to admit to a prima facie offence against or arising under an Australian law – Where the Court has discretion to refer the legal practitioner to the Legal Services Commissioner – Where the legal practitioner is not referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

EVIDENCE – Where the respondent admits to bigamy in affidavit – Where the respondent has not applied for a certificate pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether a s 128 Certificate may apply retrospectively – Consideration of authorities - Where the Court finds in obiter dicta that a s 128 Certificate is unlikely to be able to apply retrospectively.

FAMILY LAW – Children – Interim hearing – mitigation of risks – child to live with the mother – child to spend time with the father on alternate weekends.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – REVIEW APPLICATION – Where the applicant sought a review of interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for a change in the child’s residency – Where the applicant’s mental health was a significant issue in dispute – Where the application for review was dismissed – Where the applicant was granted leave to file another application in a proceeding seeking new interim parenting orders upon the receipt of a single expert report addressing their mental health.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of proceedings pending outcome of an appeal – where matter is listed for continuation of part-heard final hearing today – application dismissed and stay denied.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW – Where the second and fourth respondents seek review of orders made joining them and the third respondent to the proceedings – Where they are necessary parties to the proceedings – Application for Review dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where wife seeks orders enjoining third parties from terminating an informal lease arrangement with respect to farming property held by a family trust – Where third parties seek ejectment of spouse parties and entity controlled by spouse parties from farming property – Where wife asserts that the entirety of the farming property should form part of the assets to be divided between spouse parties pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where wife’s ultimate claim against the third parties is for a remedial constructive trust founded on proprietary estoppel.

INJUNCTIONS – Where husband seeks orders restraining wife from attending at farm property and removing her from operational control of farming enterprise.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Rules of evidence – Where the admission of parts of a report prepared by a single expert are contested – Whether the Opinion Rule should be applied – Order made applying the Opinion Rule under s 102NL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – PROCEDURE – where the second and third respondents seek to set aside orders joining them to the proceedings on the basis that they were never served with the application for joinder – where the affidavits of service relied on by the applicant were incorrect – where the process server asserted that his affidavits were made by someone else and he did not check the validity of his depositions – Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Overseas travel – Where the mother has insufficient ties to Australia to assure the Court of the return of the child – Where the mother does not have the means to provide a sum sufficient to ensure the return of the children – Application dismissed.

PARENTING – Appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where the children have lived with the Mother and spent daytime only with the Father since separation –Where the youngest child was hospitalised after consuming psilocybin while in the Father’s care – Where the children have not spent regular time with the Father since then – Where the Father was self-represented despite an order having been made pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Single Expert evidence was not updated and was untested – Where it is uncontested that the Father has at times engaged in cocaine use and excessive alcohol consumption – Where the Father has previously undergone testing for illicit drug and alcohol use but ceased undertaking such tests – Where the Mother has good parenting capacity – Where the Father has not prioritised the children’s needs over his own – Where the Father has failed to act in a child-focused way – Where the parents have no co-parenting relationship – Where orders made for the children to live with the Mother – Where the children’s time with the Father to recommence after he provides to the Mother a clear hair follicle test for illicit substances and for alcohol not in excess of “moderate consumption” – Where the Father’s time with the children to increase upon his provision to the Mother of four consecutive clear hair follicle tests – Where orders made providing for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term decisions with an obligation to consult the Father, consider his views and inform him of the decision reached – Where certain restraints made against the Father including in relation to the consumption of illicit substances and alcohol – Where certain injunctions made against both parents including with respect to non-denigration – Where orders made for international travel – Where the Mother is entitled to obtain passports for the children without the consent of the Father and to hold the children’s passports when they are not travelling – Where orders made for the parents to pay equally the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Adjournment of trial listed for seven days – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was double listed before another Judge of this Court in a five day trial – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Case Outline included that he would proffer his position following the hearing of the evidence – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer did not intend to be personally present during the course of the trial and had instructed an agent to appear on his behalf – Where Independent Children’s Lawyer provided a 1800 page tender bundle to the parties on the Saturday evening before the trial commenced – Where counsel for the Respondent, as a result of the late provision of the tender bundle, was not in a position to commence the trial for at least two days – Where it was agreed the trial would not finish in the remaining five days – Where the proceedings, which were listed in September 2025, are adjourned as a result of conduct of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where both parties have instructed experienced family lawyers and experienced counsel – Where neither party sought to be heard – Where the Court does not intend for the matter to have any prospect of a repetition of the entirely preventable set of circumstances which have resulted in the adjournment of the trial – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.

FAMILY LAW – LIQUIDATOR – Where the wife sought to discharge orders appointing receivers to a group of companies – Where the wife sought the appointment of liquidators and the consequent winding up of the companies – Where the husband opposed the application citing issues of costs – Where the third respondent proposed that the current receiver be appointed the liquidator – Where potential issues as to conflict of interest arise if the current receiver is appointed liquidator – Orders made terminating the appointment of receiver, the winding up of the companies, and the appointment of a liquidator.

FAMILY LAW – Airport Watchlist – Where parallel family proceedings are on foot in Australia and the USA – Where orders made in the USA proceedings for return of the child – Where the child is presently retained on the Airport Watchlist in Australia – Whether to remove the child’s name from the Watchlist – Whether comity is a significant factor – Request issued for removal of the child’s name.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks a combination of party/party and indemnity costs for different stages of the proceedings – Where it is found that the husband’s conduct did cause the proceedings to be unduly prolonged and unduly expensive – Where the wife made offers to settle – Where the terms of the offers to settle represented a better outcome for the husband than the final orders – Costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Limited costs order – where a second respondent was joined to the proceedings – caveats lodged by second respondent on properties held in the wife’s sole name – caveats lapsed or removed – where the wife claimed damages against the second respondent – where the wife seeks indemnity costs against the second respondent – where the second respondent seeks party costs against the wife – where the wife is to pay the second respondent’s costs of responding to the wife’s claim for damages.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – JURISDICTION – Whether the FCFCOA (Division 1) has jurisdiction to make parenting orders about the children – Where there are completed parenting proceedings overseas including final orders that the father have custody of the children and that they can spend time with the mother – Where each of the children and the parents are Australian citizens –Consideration of ss 69E and 111CD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether, notwithstanding the existence of jurisdiction to make orders with respect to the parenting of the children pursuant to the Act, the exercise of that jurisdiction is constrained – Whether the children are habitually resident in Australia – Where the children have lived in Country B since October 2022 and are settled in Country B – Where the children are not habitually resident in Australia – Where there is no basis upon which this Court may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth Personal Protection measure in relation to the children – Where the alternate relief sought by the father for a permanent stay of the proceeding is otiose and where jurisdiction ought not be exercised as to his other relief as sought – Where the application and response dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where father relocated to United States – Where the parents agree as to decision making responsibility and that the children live with the mother – Where the parents substantially agree as to the children’s time with their father – Where the outstanding issues for determination are narrow – Where the matter proceeded by way of submissions only on the question of changeover location and duration and location of Term 2 holidays.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Independent Children’s Lawyer sought contribution – Where mother legally aided – Where father would suffer financial hardship given international travel and contact costs – Costs Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Adjournment of trial – Where the Court finds that each parent represents a risk to the children – Where the Court invites the Minister for Communities and Justice to intervene in the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the respondent was already married when he married the applicant – Where the first marriage was solemnised overseas – Invalid divorce certificate from overseas - Where a decree of nullity granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by husband for parenting orders – Where the husband seeks primary care of the children but ultimately concedes in final addresses sole parental responsibility in the wife and that the children live primarily with the wife – Allegations of family violence – Orders that there be time on a staged basis for the children with the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application by husband for a property settlement – Consideration of s 79(5) factors – Property pool issues – Orders that property be distributed as to 62.5 per cent to the wife and 37.5 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children are living with the Father – Where the children were spending supervised time with the Mother – Where interim orders were made during the final hearing for the children to commence spending unsupervised time with the Mother – Where the Mother subsequently made allegations of sexual abuse of the children by the Father and retained the children – Where evidence in the parenting proceedings was reopened – Where adverse credibility findings are made against the Mother – Where the Mother has shown disregard for Court orders, including in relation to proceedings concerning her child from a previous relationship – Where each parent makes allegations of family violence against the other – Where the Father has, at times, acted in a “high-handed” way towards the Mother but has not engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour –Where there is a conglomeration of adverse factors for the children in the care of the Mother – Where the children are not safe from emotional and psychological harm in the care of the Mother – Where there is an unacceptable risk to the children arising from the Mother’s relationships with men – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought no time orders with respect to the Mother – Where the Mother sought that the children live with her and spend time with the Father –Where long-term supervision not in children’s best interests – Where orders made for the children to spend no time with the Mother – Where orders are made enabling the Mother to send cards and presents to the children.

PROPERTY – Where evidence was unsatisfactory – Where the property pool is small – Where a “two pool” approach adopted –Where the Husband’s contributions exceed the Wife’s – Where there should be a significant s 75(2) adjustment by reason of the Husband’s sole care of the children – Where the Husband should have the opportunity to retain the former matrimonial home –Where the Wife should receive 25 per cent of the non-superannuation pool ––Where orders made for sale of the former matrimonial home in the event the Husband is unable to make the payment – Where superannuation splitting orders made such that the Wife should receive 35 per cent of the superannuation pool.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Application for leave to commence proceedings for adoption – Where the child’s biological father is deceased – Where leave is granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks sole responsibility for long term decision making for a six year old child and no time with the father – Where the father initially sought shared decision making responsibility and five nights a fortnight with the child –Where in final submissions without notice to the other parties, the father proposed as an alternative position weekly supervised time with the child and joint decision making responsibility – Where the mother makes serious allegations of family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father and contends he poses an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the father conceded perpetrating some forms of family violence but also contended the mother committed family violence, notwithstanding she should retain primary care of the child – Where the father has failed to demonstrate any insight into his behaviour or successfully ameliorate his negative attitude towards the mother – Where it is found the father poses an unacceptable risk if the child spends unsupervised time with the father – Consideration of whether no time or long term supervision is warranted – Consideration of ancillary orders including overseas travel for the child to the mother’s country of origin and whether the child should be placed on the watchlist – Held the child should not be placed on the watchlist and the child should be permitted to travel internationally with his mother.

EVIDENCE – Where the father’s counsel flagged admissibility issues for the recordings under s 135 and s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Surveillance Devices Act – Where the objection was not formally pressed by the father’s counsel.

PROCEDURAL – Where the mother seeks a vexatious or harmful proceedings order – In the circumstances the father is to spend limited time with the child and have little contact with the mother – Where the mother’s submissions do not canvass the provisions required under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – No vexatious proceedings order or harmful proceeding order be made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child has not met the father and does not have a relationship with him – Where the child has a number of health and developmental issues – Where the father has engaged in serious family violence towards the mother – Orders made for the child to have no contact or communication with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Where the wife contends the husband has diluted his interests in various corporate entities to remove assets from the available pool – Claims pursuant to s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the accounts of the various corporate entities are in evidence but cannot be relied upon – Where the husband reduced his shareholdings but retained an entitlement to withdraw company funds – Where there is no evidence as to the ability to wind back the husband’s use of the funds – Where the s 106B claim fails – Balance sheet items – Contributions – Where the husband made greater initial contributions – Where the husband made greater financial contributions during the relationship – Where the wife had and continues to have the care of the children – Consideration of non-disclosure – Where the husband has received significant funds from the various corporate entities – Orders to the effect the wife receives 72 per cent of the available assets.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the parties underwent divorce proceedings and a property settlement in China – Where the parties’ divorce proceedings in China did not deal with real property in Australia – Where the applicant has continued to litigate against the respondent extensively in China – Where there are Chinese proceedings remaining on foot – Where the applicant filed these proceedings seeking discovery from the wife in June 2023 – Where the respondent alleges there was an abuse of process at the time of the commencement of the proceedings – Where the Court finds the applicant instituted the proceedings for an improper purpose – Where the respondent has established that the applicant engaged in an abuse of process – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the Applicant seeks a declaration that her marriage to the Respondent is a nullity – Where the Respondent submits to any order the Court may make – Declaration by the Court that the marriage is null and void – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interest of the child – Family violence perpetrated by the father – Order for no time spending.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Dispute between husband and wife – Intervener is the husband’s mother – Declaration of constructive trust in favour of intervener – Wife to retain 100% assets.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Parenting – Where the children have lived with the father since early 2023 – Where the children have spent four nights per fortnight with the mother since late 2023 – Where it is uncontroversial one party must have sole decision-making authority for the children – Parties in dispute about how much time the children should either live or spend with the mother during school terms – Where the children want to spend more time with the mother – Where the children are liable to be influenced by their perceptions of the mother’s needs – Where the views of the children are not given decisive weight because of their age and immaturity – Where it is better to avoid any fundamental change to the children’s routine – Where the father has a superior capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs – Ordered the children continue living primarily with the father and he have sole decision-making authority – Parents retain parental responsibility - Children spend five contiguous nights per fortnight with the mother – School holidays to be shared equivalently – 

Property – Where the parties mistakenly sought a declaration of their de facto relationship – Where is it just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where most of the family wealth was accumulated by the father before the children were born – Where the parties’ contributions were largely equivalent between the birth of the children and separation – Where the father’s contributions to the care and welfare of the children outstripped those of the mother since separation – Contribution entitlement assessed as 67/33 – Where the husband became indebted to his corporation in order to pay the wife $800,000 in compliance with an interim property order – Where the husband will incur a tax debt in repaying the loan over the next seven years – Where the prospective tax debt represents about four per cent of the parties’ net property – Adjustment of three per cent in the favour of the father in circumstances where his financial circumstances could change for the better or he is able to pay the loan sooner – Where the parties agreed the final orders should comprise a cash component and a sum split from the father’s superannuation – Husband to receive 70 per cent of the parties’ property and the wife 30 per cent - Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Magellan List – Where parents have entered into consent orders that significantly narrowed the issues at trial – Where mother seeks sole decision making responsibility – Where father seeks joint decision making responsibility with regard to the child's health– Where parents have ineffective communication– Order made for the mother to exercise sole decision making responsibility on the proviso that she notify the father and consider his input regarding any major long-term decisions – Dispute about the child's spend time arrangements with the father post-family therapy – Order made for graduating time with the father, beginning with supervised handovers – Where father contends that the mother is a flight risk based on her application for a foreign passport for the child, without the father’s knowledge – Where the mother not informing the father of this application is best explained by their general communication difficulties– Where the child has many relatives overseas – Where the mother owns property and has employment in Australia – Held the mother is not a flight risk – Held the child should not leave Australia in the immediate future in order to effectively reintroduce time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parenting and de facto property proceedings were subject to a final hearing – Where the Respondent and the parties’ children tragically passed away after the proceedings were reserved for judgment – Where the finalisation of the property proceedings has been delayed due to matters relating to the deceased’s entitlement to superannuation and death benefit claim.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside a Notice to Produce – Where the respondent in the substantive proceeding contended that the form of the Notice to Produce was non-compliant and that one item was oppressive – Where the applicant in the substantive proceeding sought to dismiss the application and for the respondent to forthwith produce the items detailed in the Notice to Produce – Where the item of the Notice to Produce which was contended to be oppressive is set aside – Where the application to set aside the Notice to Produce on the grounds of asserted non-compliance is dismissed – Where two of the items to be produced were contended to be the subject of legal professional privilege – Where the argument of the claim of waiver of legal professional privilege over those items is to be heard by another judge of this Court.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the Court finds that the mother has physically abused the child and caused him serious psychological harm – Where the child is heavily influenced by his father’s views – Where the father is the unchallenged residential parent – Consideration of long-term supervision.

RELOCATION – Where the father seeks to relocate with the child from the western suburbs of the City of Sydney to the City of Perth– Where the mother opposes relocation – Findings that relocation is not in the child’s best interests – Relocation not permitted.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (CTH) CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – Oppression proceedings –transferred from the Federal Court to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) pursuant to s 34AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 2001(Cth) and r 27.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 –Where applicants assert oppressive conduct on the part of the shareholders of the first respondent company – applicant seeks the appointment of a receiver and manager on an interlocutory basis – concurrent and inter related family law proceedings in this court – application dismissed and the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the Court finds that the children are not at a risk of harm in either parent’s household – Where the evidence does not support a finding that the children ought to be removed from the mother’s primary care.

PARENTING – Decision-making – Where there is a lack of parental cooperation – Where these is a risk of unilateral decision making by the mother – Where joint decision-making is protective of the children’s best interests – Joint decision-making appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where a Notice of Objection is filed by the Mother – where the Notice of Objection is in relation to a subpoena issued by the Independent Children’s Lawyer to a Contact Centre – where the Mother did not attend Court – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer is directed to inspect the subpoenaed material – where the parties are thereafter given leave to view the subpoena material – where the Notice of Objection is dismissed.