Judgments

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – significant change of circumstances – s 65DAAA – where final orders had provided for the children to live with the father and spend professionally supervised time with the mother – where the mother sought for the children to be returned to her care – where the primary judge had found that the mother’s poor mental health posed a risk to the children – where the final orders had been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal – where the mother sought to relitigate issues determined at final hearing – where the mother made a series of unfounded and extraordinary allegations against the father in her oral submissions – no evidence of a significant change of circumstances – application dismissed.

ORDERS – harmful proceedings – where the mother had filed and attempted to file numerous applications in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia – where the mother filed multiple affidavits in support of her Application in a Proceeding – where the father sought a harmful proceedings order and that application was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where the father and children had suffered psychological harm as a result of the mother’s conduct – where the father had suffered financial detriment as a result of ongoing court events – harmful proceedings order made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Consideration of what final orders are in the best interests of the youngest child who was subject to interim orders for supervised time with the father – Where final orders have previously been made for the two older siblings – Where it is in the best interests of the youngest child to make no prescribed orders to spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION TO RE-OPEN – Where application made to reconsider final parenting orders – Where previous judgment found unacceptable risk – Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances – Where evidence of treating practitioner relied upon to establish changes in circumstances – Finding that circumstances have changed – Whether best interests are in favour of reconsideration - Whether evidence capable of displacing multi-factored risks - Finding that evidence lacks capacity to address displacement of risk – Not in best interests to reconsider – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Oral application by the father to further cross examine the mother – Where the father alleges denial of procedural fairness on basis that his previous legal representation failed to adequately cross examine the mother in accordance with his explicit instructions – Where the evidence has not concluded – Where the father is awaiting the reallocation of legal representation pursuant to s 102NA – Leave granted to the father’s legal representatives to further cross examine the mother on limited issues.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Default – Where orders were made directing the mother to make submissions as to why the Court should not dismiss her relief due to her continued default in complying with orders – Where the mother has not filed her trial affidavit despite numerous orders compelling her to do so – Consideration of Pt 10.6 of the Rules – Where the Court is advised that the mother can file her trial affidavit in seven days – Where one last opportunity to comply with orders for the filing of her trial affidavit is afforded – Where the Court is not satisfied that there is a prejudice to the father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - final hearing adjourned due to death of significant relative – interim orders made for 2026 schooling – consent s 68B injunction regarding mother’s recent partner – father’s application to vary current interim orders pending allocation of a new final hearing date otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where wife brings a barrage of applications notwithstanding final parenting and property orders untouched on appeal – Where wife agitates applications for contempt, contraventions, parenting orders, property orders, and, initiates s79A and s 65DAAA proceedings – Where many applications are discontinued by the wife months after filing – Where husband subjected to those applications even if discontinued – Whether cumulative harm to father and child – Where reasonable grounds to believe husband and child will suffer harm if further proceedings instituted – Harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – ENFORCEMENT – Where wife will not comply with final property orders – Where parties denied the fruits of the litigation – Where wife filed two appeals, applications for contempt, contraventions, adjournments, interim orders as well as fresh s 79A and s 65DAAA proceedings – Where one appeal struck out – Where second appeal dismissed with costs – Where wife opposes enforcement – Where wife says enforcement ought await the hearing of her s 79A application – Where preliminary evaluation of s 79A application undertaken – Orders made for enforcement – Costs order made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Property – Bifurcation of proceedings – Where the wife joined the husband’s mother, the husband’s brother and a company to the substantive proceedings as the second, third and fourth respondents - Where the husband and the second, third and fourth respondents mutually seek that the proceedings be bifurcated to determine all third party issues prior to the competing claims pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of r 10.10 and r 10.11 – Where the Court is persuaded to bifurcate the third party claims in circumstances where there is a risk that the value of the matrimonial asset pool may be “obliterated” by the third party claims.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Where the child is six years of age – Where the mother submits that the father perpetrated family violence towards her during the relationship and following separation – Where the father submits that the mother engaged in controlling behaviour – Where the court finds that each party engaged in poor conduct towards the other – Where the child was exposed to the parents’ conflict – Where the child otherwise has a positive bond with each parent – Where there is no risk of harm to the child in either parent’s care – Where orders are made for the child to live with the mother and spend gradually increasing time with the father – Where the mother is to have sole decision-making responsibility for long-term decisions – Where ancillary orders and restraints are made to minimise the risk of further conflict between deeply distrusting parents. 

PROPERTY – Preliminary procedural applications dealt with during the final hearing – Balance sheet items – Legal fees – Where the direct financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship significantly favour the husband – Where it is just and equitable to make property adjustment orders – Where the wife will have the primary care of the child in the future but where the child will spend substantial time with the husband – Where, despite the wife’s contentions, the principles of Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 are not engaged – Contribution based entitlement assessed as to the husband 62 per cent and as to the wife 38 per cent, with a 4 per cent future needs adjustment in favour of the wife – Where the wife may elect to retain the former family home subject to the payment of a sum of money to the husband.

 
CHILD SUPPORT – Application by the wife for non-periodic support by the husband, being payment of the child’s school fees – Where the husband contends that the child’s attendance at a particular school is not resolved – Where the husband conceded that he took steps with the wife to enrol the child at the school – Where it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to make the non-periodic child support order – Where the husband is to pay one half of the child’s school fees.
 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Best interests of the child – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Where an order is made by consent for a change of residence and a three-month moratorium on time spent with the mother.

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.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where it was contended that the parties’ adult children held real properties on trust for their parents – Where the parties’ adult children were joined to the proceedings on the filing of the Initiating Application – Where the subject real properties have been sold – Where the adult children’s joinder to the proceedings is no longer necessary – Orders made removing the parties’ adult children as parties to the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Applications to adjourn – Where the husband twice sought to adjourn the final hearing – Where the husband failed to establish that the interests of justice required adjournment – Both adjournment applications dismissed – Application by husband to exclude aspects of an expert's report – Where expert conceded some of the opinions adopted were based on the opinions of unidentified persons – Objections sustained – Application to lead further evidence – Where husband sought to lead additional evidence of a lay witness after husband’s evidence had concluded – Where this evidence was provided late and was imprecise in nature – Application to lead further evidence dismissed.

PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the husband’s shares and options in an overseas corporation he founded make up the bulk of the parties’ wealth – Where husband contends these shares and options are not “property” – Where the inability to transfer an item will not necessarily prevent it from being classified as property – Where the evidence does not support the assertion that the husband's shares cannot be transferred – Held that both the husband's shares and options are property for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where husband seeks an asset by asset contributions assessment – Where both parties made extensive contributions over the marriage – Orders made to give each party an equal share of the net assets of the marriage.

FAMILY LAW – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – where matter referred for interim hearing – case management – reasons made ex-parte – to assist preparation of case – relief from Harman undertaking.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Where a harmful proceedings order was previously made against the husband – Application by the husband for a stay of orders made enforcing final orders pending an application for leave to appeal – Where the husband requires leave to institute the application for a stay – Orders made dismissing the husband’s application pursuant to s 102QAF(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where final orders were made on 3 April 2025 – Where, following final orders being made, the husband instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria – Where those proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) – Where the wife filed an application seeking orders to give effect to the final orders of 3 April 2025 in circumstances where the husband has been non-compliant – Husband’s application dismissed – Harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Two children aged 11 and 9 Years – Wife seeks continuation of interim week-about – Husband and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek children live primarily with the husband during school terms – Wife has conflictual and litigious relationship with the school – Wife’s various diagnoses including ADHD and CPTSD - relevance of symptoms – Wife’s critical and demeaning attitude to the husband personally and to his relationship with the children – No likelihood of successful co-parenting relationship – Where the wife has historically been the primary carer – Both parents and experts agree current equal shared care working well – Children express no wish to move from current arrangement – Order for week about shared care – Parental responsibility – No likelihood of co-parenting and consultation – Order for sole parental responsibility in the husband.

PROPERTY – Consideration of contributions and s 79(5) factors – Consideration of role of wife and third party solicitors in the delayed settlement of the sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the husband seeks “damages” against second respondent third party solicitors or alternatively “wastage” consideration against the wife – Orders for distribution of property pool as to 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife – Consideration of companion animals being two dogs – To be considered as “items of property” and therefore limited sentimental value but an asset – Where both parties want the assets – Consideration of whether “assets” be sold or where each party retain one dog/asset where no evidence of value being impacted on the singular assets or assets as a pair.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application brought by the respondent mother – where mother during the interim hearing did not press her interim application – interim application filed by the mother on 4 August 2025 dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – interim application brought by the applicant father (filed 6 August 2025 and amended on 18 November 2025) – where the father seeks an interim change of residence for the child to live with him - where previous interim parenting orders provided for changeovers to occur at a Contact Centre – where the mother made complaints and raised allegations against the Contact Centre leading to the Contact Centre withdrawing its services from this family – where the steps taken by the mother had the effect of frustrating the Court Orders – where the effect of the mother’s conduct has been that the child has not been able to spend any time with the father since 1 August 2025 - where the mother seeks the child remain living with her – where the evidence supports an interim change of residence to the father is in the best interests of the child – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports an interim change of residence – where the Court ordered on an interim basis that the child live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother – where the mother stated that she would not comply with the Court Order – where the Court issued a Recovery Order to in the registry.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Live with – Spend time with arrangements – Parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks to relocate to the United Kingdom with the child – Allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the child has significant needs – Orders made prohibiting the mother from relocating to the United Kingdom with the child – Orders made for the child to live with the mother and spend five nights per fortnight with the father – Orders made for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife sought the joinder of eight companies – Where there is not established a basis for the appointment of new directors and the removal of others – Where no order is sought on a final basis in relation to any of the putative joinder companies, their shares or their property – Where the Court is not satisfied that they are necessary parties and consequently there is not any basis for their joinder.
 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife sought that a company be bound by orders previously made – Where the company owns a hotel in its capacity as Trustee for a unit trust – Where the company has one director and shareholder which is not the husband or the wife, or a company controlled by them – Where the Trustee is bound by the terms of the Unit Trust to act on behalf of and in the interests of all unit holders – Where the husband and wife have an interest in only one unit holder – Where the effect of the orders that the wife sought is to compel the company to deal with the property of the unit trust in favour of one unit holder over that of others – Where the Court is not satisfied that there has been established on the evidence or at law a basis for the company to be injuncted.
 

APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR – Where the wife sought that she, the husband’s litigation guardian, and an independent director be appointed directors of the joinder companies and the existing directors resign – Where the wife contended that the appointment of additional directors was necessary to protect the interests of the wife in each of the putative joinder companies – Where the relief was opposed by the first, second, fourth respondents and an interested party – Where the wife seeks no orders on a final basis in relation to the companies nor in relation to the shares held in the companies – Where the onus rests on the wife to establish a risk or danger that her final relief will be imperilled – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife has established that the balance of convenience favours the granting of injunctions.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where both parents alleged significant family violence – Where the child has been exposed to family violence and extended parental conflict – Where neither parent alleged an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the other’s care – Where the Court finds the child’s best interests met by continuation of equal shared care – Where both parents retain parental responsibility with prescriptive orders made for education, and health.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Premature disposal of assets – Property in Australia and overseas – Effect of family violence on the wife’s current and future circumstances – Where the wife seeks an injunction for her personal protection against the husband – Disputed loans – Where the husband contends that he owes money to third parties overseas – Where the purported creditors were not on affidavit – Where the husband contends that the parties’ daughter holds bitcoin on trust for the parties – Indemnity – Whether the wife’s dowry claim should be categorised as a liability of the husband – Contributions – Where the wife contends a historical pattern of family violence by the husband – Whether numerous disputed items be notionally added back to the asset pool.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where the husband received an inheritance post separation from the paternal grandmother – Where the value of the inheritance is in dispute but, on any case, represents a significant sum – Where there is dispute as to the dealings of property involving the paternal grandparents – Where the wife asserts that she made contributions towards the paternal grandparents – Where the Court takes a global approach – Contribution-based entitlement assessed as 70/30 in favour of the husband with a 3 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife taking into account s 75(2) factors.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing proceeded undefended in respect of both mother and father – Paternal grandmother to have sole decision making responsibility for children – Where no orders can be made in the best interests of children – Where paternal grandmother’s household poses unacceptable risks of harm to children – Department of Communities and Justice NSW (“DCJ”) to be notified and provided documents from file as children remain at unacceptable risk of harm and no safe alternative is available to this court – DCJ invited to commence proceedings in Children’s Court despite these orders – Concerns regarding subject children’s half-sibling and step-sibling in mother’s household – Queensland Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety notified of reasonable belief of non-subject children at risk.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Short marriage – Small property pool – Balance sheet items – Where the husband made the bulk of the financial contributions – Where the wife made the bulk of the non-financial contributions – Where the wife will have the ongoing care of the child – Where the husband reduced his superannuation to fund cryptocurrency investments – Property division 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband sought summary dismissal of the wife’s application – Where the application was refused but the parenting proceedings were stayed until the return of the child to Australia – Where the wife applies for costs of the summary dismissal proceedings – Where the practical effect was the husband was unsuccessful on the property issue but not parenting – Where neither party can easily bear a costs order – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where the first respondent biological mother of the child did not participate – Where the second respondent asserted father of the child was incarcerated and sought no orders – Where the third respondent sought sole decision-making responsibility and for the child to live with her – Where the applicant resides in Town C and the third respondent resides in a remote community in the Northern Territory – Where each of the applicant and the third respondent contended limited financial means to facilitate a shared care arrangement or school holiday time with the other party – Consideration of unacceptable risks contended by each party.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Loss of culture, community, and kin – Where the child is Aboriginal – Where the applicant is not Aboriginal – Where the third respondent is Aboriginal and a member of the same kinship community as the child – Where the third respondent gave evidence of her awareness and understanding of the importance of culture, country, community and kin – Where the applicant gave evidence as to her asserted cultural competency and understanding of the importance of culture for Aboriginal peoples – Where the applicant concedes that there are aspects of culture such as Sorry Business and Men’s Business that she cannot provide for the child – Where it is not possible for the child to learn and gain a deep appreciation of his F/J people culture if he is not growing up on country – Where the third respondent is uniquely equipped to encourage and facilitate the child’s connection with his community, country, kin and culture – Where the Court is satisfied that the orders proposed by the third respondent enable the child to enjoy the rights identified in s 60CC(3) of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied that it is only through living on country in the care of the third respondent that the child can learn stories, Songlines, and Men’s Business – Where to order otherwise would give rise to an unacceptable risk through the loss of culture, community, and kin.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Child sexual abuse – Where the child has made disclosures of child sexual abuse to the applicant and to government agencies – Where the government agencies have not interviewed the alleged perpetrator or made conclusive findings that the child sexual abuse has occurred – Where the applicant contends that to return the child to the same remote community as the alleged perpetrator would give rise to an unacceptable risk – Where the applicant submits that there is no way that the risk can be ameliorated by orders – Where the applicant contends the risk is heightened by a denial of any risk of harm by the third respondent – Where the third respondent contends that she can ensure the safety of the child – Consideration of the contended risk event, the likelihood of it occurring and the magnitude of harm which might ensue if the risk event does occur – Where the Court is not persuaded that the risk meets the threshold of an unacceptable risk – Where the Court is satisfied that such risk as may exist is acceptable.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application made for “slip rule” amendments to orders consequent to final judgment – where the applicant’s application is successful – where the respondent’s proposals would change the substance of the orders – where amendments are made to the orders to clarify the court’s intention - Application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEUDRE – SEPARATE DETERMINATION – Where the wife asserts that non-marriage respondents hold shares in a corporation for the husband – Consideration of rr 10.10 and 10.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) as to the separate hearing of the claim made affecting the interests of the non-marriage respondents – Consideration of mandates contained in s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), r 1.04, and other discretionary factors – Application for a separate issue determination refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the family has previously been the subject of Hague Convention proceedings of which were ultimately discontinued by the Central Authority – Where the mother and children remain living in Australia while the father remains living in Country B – Where the children are teenagers and have expressed wishes in relation to the time they spend with the father. 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child lives with the father – Where the mother has failed to engage with interim orders for her to spend time with the child – Where it is conceded that the mother’s new partner is an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the scope of the dispute is narrow – Orders made for the mother to spend time with the child.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant husband seeks indemnity costs against the wife for costs thrown away following the vacation of hearing due to medical event – Party/party costs sought in the alternative – Where the wife failed to comply with directions to provide further evidence as to medical event – Where the only evidence available to the Court is hospital discharge summary – Where Blatch v Archer inference drawn – Party/party costs ordered against the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – JURISDICTION -Forum – Where there are ongoing proceedings in State C – Where the father seeks a stay of the Australian proceedings – Whether Australia is an appropriate forum – Where the child has lived in Australia in his mother’s sole care for most of his life – Where it is in the best interests of the child for orders to be made in Australia – Orders made for the child to live with mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Father to have sole parental responsibility with an obligation to consult the mother – Child to continue living with the father as agreed by all parties – Assessment of what time the child shall spend with the mother – Orders made to provide the child with an opportunity to build a relationship with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – undefended hearing – family violence – impact of time on primary caregiver – children with high needs – orders for sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues and no time.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – PARENTING – Where final orders provide for the children to spend five nights a fortnight and half school holidays with the Father – Where the parents have agreed pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the final orders need to be reconsidered – Where the children are now aged 13 and 15 – Where the children have stopped spending regular time with the Father and have sporadic communication with him – Where the children have expressed strong views that they wish to determine when they spend time with the Father – Where the children have significant mental health challenges – Where the Mother makes various allegations of risk – Where Court Child Expert opines that the children’s mental health may be compromised if orders are made for time with the Father contrary to their views – Where orders made suspending the final “spend time” orders – Where orders impinging on the children’s therapy are not in their best interests – Where orders made for the children to spend time with and communicate with the Father in accordance with their views – Where the Father has sole parental responsibility in respect of medical decisions under the final orders – Where that order is suspended and orders made providing for parents to have joint parental decision-making.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders – Where the wife seeks the child’s time with the husband to be limited to twice a week – Where the husband seeks the child’s time to be each weekend – Where the wife alleges the husband has perpetrated family violence – Where the husband denies allegations of family violence – Where the Court is not persuaded that there is a possibility of the existence of harm in overnight time – Where the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of this child for him to resume spending overnight time with the husband.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Anti-suit injunction – Where the wife sought an anti-suit injunction against the husband commencing proceedings in the People’s Republic of China – Where the wife conceded there was no evidence that the husband had said he would commence any such proceedings – Where the husband proffered an undertaking to give the wife 60 days prior written notice of the commencement of such proceedings. – No anti-suit injunction order made.

Interim orders – Costs – Where the wife sought the husband make various payments for her benefit – Where the husband opposed the order on grounds of a lack of financial capacity to make the payments – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied that the husband has the capacity to meet a payment to the wife but not in the magnitude sought by the wife – Order made for the payment of $160,000 to the wife.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Injunction – Where the eighth and ninth respondents consented to the injunction on a without admissions basis but sought to include a notice provision – Where the wife did not consent to the notice provision – Where the Court is satisfied that the wife has an arguable case and that if the injunction is not made the wife’s case for final relief may be imperilled – Where the eighth respondent advanced no submissions as to prejudice – Where the wife has given an undertaking as to damages – Where the Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction – Where the Court is not satisfied that the notice provision sought is necessary or proper.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Injunction – Where the wife sought to restrain the putative tenth respondent from dealing with funds held by it on behalf of the various persons and entities identified – Where the interested parties consented to the injunction – Where the eighth and ninth respondents opposed the orders in so far as the orders sought to injunct each of the eighth and ninth respondents’ property – Where the Court is satisfied that the wife has an arguable case and that if the injunction is not made the wife’s case for final relief may be imperilled – Where the Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Oral decision – Mother alleges father slapped child’s face – Child tells police it was his bottom – Mother fabricated allegation in the context of a dispute about parenting arrangements – Father to exercise sole decision making authority for major long term decisions subject to consultation – Child to continue in week about arrangement and at present school – Ancillary orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by wife seeking indemnity costs of the substantive proceedings against the husband – Application opposed by the husband – Application by husband for costs of a discrete event – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of options available to Court to Order quantum of costs – Consideration of indemnity costs – Order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed amount set off by the costs the wife is to pay to husband in respect of the husband’s application to reopen his case to adduce further evidence during the course of the trial.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – indemnity costs application by the husband – wife’s conduct not sufficient to make an indemnity costs order against her – application for indemnity costs dismissed – but costs ordered on a party/party basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Notice of Objection made by a health service to a subpoena to produce protected confidences of a child pursuant to s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the determination of a protected confidence claim is an evaluative and not a discretionary judgment – Where s 102BE of the Act entails the weighing of countervailing considerations – Where the potential for harm outweighs the desirability of the production of the protected confidence material – Where the objection is upheld and a direction is made pursuant to s 102BD of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Variation of spousal maintenance orders – Where the husband seeks to set aside interim orders relating to spousal maintenance – Where the wife is in receipt of rental income previously not disclosed – Where the husband has discharged the onus in proving that the wife’s circumstances had changed – Amount of spousal maintenance decreased in line with rental income received.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders –Litigation funding – Consideration of the Full Court’s decision in Shinohara in the context of paid legal fees ,– Where the husband opposed the making of any litigation funding order – Where the husband conceded that if an order was made an appropriate amount would be in the sum of $1.2 million – Where the Court is satisfied the husband has the capacity to meet the wife’s legal fees.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders –Where the wife seeks permission pursuant to Rule 6.04(1) in respect of documents produced on subpoena – Where the wife seeks to use the documents in proceedings in the People’s Republic of China – Where the husband opposed the orders sought by the wife – Where the Court is satisfied that special circumstances exist – Leave granted.

FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Where the fourth respondent sought a reimbursement from the second respondent of approximately $14,000– Where in the context of the assets held by him, the quantum of the order enlivens issues of proportionality – Where the second respondent opposed the order – Where the amount that is at issue is modest relative to the overall circumstances of the fourth respondent.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Where the second respondent in the substantive proceedings seeks that the trial judge be disqualified – Where the second respondent contends actual and apprehended bias, and that procedural fairness was not afforded – Where each contention was without merit – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to United Kingdom – Where the father alleges wrongful retention – Mother conceded wrongful retention – Whether regulatory exceptions are raised – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation – Objection of the child – Where the mother has failed to discharge her onus and the regulatory exceptions of grave risk and objection of the child are not satisfied – Child to return to the United Kingdom.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim parenting orders – no significant change in circumstances to warrant reopening final orders.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim orders - Risk of psychological harm from loss of relationship with a parent – Where there are allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the father – Where the mother supplied falsified evidence to the Court – Where the mother falsified death threats purportedly made by the father – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to reintroduce time with father – Where there are risks with reintroduction and without – Where the risk of reintroduction outweighs the risk of no reintroduction – Orders made for supervised time.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where final property and parenting orders were made – Where each party seeks his/her costs on an indemnity basis – Where the mother’s conduct as a litigant during the proceedings caused unnecessary costs to be incurred – Where the husband had made an offer to resolve the financial proceedings in a sum in excess of the amount awarded to the wife – Consideration of the quantum of costs – Wife to pay the costs incurred by the husband including counsel fees for a defined period.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child is five years old – Where the father sought sole decision-making responsibility, for the child to live with him and spend alternate weekends with the mother until she was 12 years old, and then to progress to an equal time arrangement if he and the child agreed – Where the father also sought to relocate with the child to Canberra – Where the mother sought a continuation of those orders already in place – Where there is significant ongoing parental conflict – Where it is unlikely the parental conflict will abate – Where orders are made which generally mirror those sought by the mother.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the father had filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking variation of consent orders – where application to vary orders dismissed - where the mother seeks costs on an indemnity basis – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks the costs of the application – where the father was wholly unsuccessful in his application – consideration of s 114UB factors – where the mother failed to provide evidence of the costs agreement as between herself and her solicitors in compliance with rule 12.13 – costs granted on a party-party basis in favour of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Affidavits – Application by the wife to rely on a further affidavit for the final hearing – Where the husband objects to a paragraph and exhibit of the affidavit – Affidavit sworn in support of an Application in a Proceeding – Where it was not apparent the wife sought to rely on the affidavit in the principal proceedings – Where there is little opportunity to test the evidence.