Judgments

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Application for return of children to Japan – Determination of habitual residence – Children residing in Japan for extended period – Ambiguous parental intention – Integration into Japanese family, educational and social environment – Habitual residence established in Japan – No regulatory exceptions made out – Return order made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife seeks to join third parties, including individuals and corporate entities – Where the putative respondents opposed the joinder – Where the wife contends that the putative respondents hold interests in companies the subject of the proceedings – Where the Court is satisfied that the rights of the putative respondents may be directly affected by the orders sought – Orders made for joinder of the putative respondents.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the husband seeks to join the wife’s parents to the proceedings in relation to properties held in their names – Where the husband seeks declaratory relief only and no orders which would affect the ownership of those properties – Where the Court is not satisfied that they are necessary parties and consequently there is no basis for their joinder – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the husband and wife both seek sole decision making responsibility for major long term issues for their daughter – Where the husband seeks a change of the child’s residence from Melbourne to Hobart when the child has lived with her mother in Melbourne since July 2022 – Orders made for the wife to have sole responsibility for long term decision making, subject to notification to the husband, for the child to remain living in Melbourne with the wife and to spend time with the husband.
 

PROPERTY – Where parties in dispute about the assets and liabilities comprising the asset pool for division, their respective contributions and future needs – Where both parties allege the other has failed to comply with disclosure obligations and have deliberately concealed assets – Where the husband seeks add-backs inconsistent with legislative amendments and a mathematical approach to the exercise of discretion – Where it is apparent the husband has extensively relied on generative AI to produce prolix and lengthy documents – Orders made for a roughly equal division of the asset pools as determined. 

SPOUSAL MAITAINENCE – Where the husband seeks spousal maintenance – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where parenting orders were made by consent in 2020 – Where the mother unilaterally removed the children from the father’s care – Where the children expressed a wish to live with the mother – Where the Court is satisfied the children’s views are likely influenced by pressure and parental conflict – Where the parents have demonstrated little capacity to communicate directly – Sole decision‑making responsibility for education and health granted to the father – Children to live with the father and spend time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where final property adjustment orders in force – Where parties disagree about the interpretation of the orders – Where the wife’s solicitors hold funds pending distribution of them to parties – Where parties disagree about payments to be made from fund.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought a costs order on an indemnity basis following an Application – Enforcement in which the husband was unsuccessful – Where the husband conceded that a costs order should be made but contended that it should be on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed – Where the circumstances are not exceptional such as to warrant an indemnity costs order – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

COSTS – Where the wife seeks the second respondent pay her costs on an indemnity basis of an Application in a Proceeding that resulted in consent orders – Where the second respondent opposed the making of a costs order and contended that each party should bear their own costs – Where the Court is not satisfied there are circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that each party pay their own costs – No order for costs – Application dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife makes an application for costs in substantive property proceedings – Where the husband contends his financial circumstances militate against any costs order being made – Where the husband’s conduct of the proceedings was delinquent – Where the husband did not accept the wife’s offer of settlement before the trial – Orders made – Husband to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the financial cause in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for interim parenting orders made at the conclusion of the final hearing – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek to cease all time and communication between the father and the children pending the making of final orders – Order made providing for the older child to spend time with the father in accordance with the child’s wishes – Order made reducing the time spent between the father and the younger child from a week about arrangement to three nights per fortnight.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks injunctive orders for the preservation of property – Where the husband disposed of a luxury motor vehicle and remitted the proceeds of sale overseas – Where the wife contends the husband was the legal and beneficial owner of the motor vehicle – Where the husband contends the motor vehicle was owned by a company and the sale proceeds were remitted in payment of a liability of the company to a third party within the ordinary course of business – Where the husband had previously disclosed in court documents under oath that he was the legal owner of the motor vehicle – Where the husband failed to provide financial records of the company proving its ownership of the motor vehicle – Where it is not established that the company had a pre-existing liability owed to the third party at least in the amount of the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle – Where it is not established that the proceeds of sale are not within the husband’s possession or control – Order made directing the husband to cause the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle to be paid into the wife’s solicitor’s trust account pending further order.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – Interim parenting orders – Where the mother seeks to suspend the father’s time and relocate the children’s primary residence from Adelaide to Town B – Where the mother alleges the children are at risk of both physical abuse together with psychological and/or emotional abuse – Where the children have significant and high needs – Where ICL supports the order sought by the mother – Where the Court cannot exclude the possibility that the children have suffered harm – Where the Court is satisfied that it is presently in the children’s best interests to live with the mother and relocate on an interim basis – Orders made for the children to spend supervised time with the father each alternate weekend – Supervision considered suitably protective against the risk of harm the father poses.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING – Where the Father alleges that, since the making of the final orders on 5 September 2025, the Mother has not complied with the “spend time” orders as sought by her – Where the Mother’s case was that she had not contravened the orders or, in the alternative, that she had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the orders – Where children (aged 14 and 10) have now not spent time with the Father in accordance with orders since March 2025 – Where Court is satisfied the Mother intentionally failed to comply with the relevant orders – Where no reasonable excuse established – Where Mother’s evidence as to the children’s reluctance to spend time with the Father is insufficiently particularised – Where the Mother gave evidence that she relies upon the views of the older child in relation to whether that child and the younger child should be made available for time with the Father – Where declaration made that the Mother contravened the orders without reasonable excuse – Where the Mother is required to enter into a two-year bond without surety or security on condition that she complies with the orders in respect of the 10 year old child –Where the Court is not satisfied that make-up time is in the children’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Where the wife seeks to amend previous orders for security – Where leave is not required for substantive proceedings – Where property proceedings were finalised in a foreign court – Where the husband holds superannuation in Australia – Whether wife has complied with orders of foreign court to make to the husband – Contentions over assessment of quantum of security – Whether costs award in Australia would be enforceable in foreign court – Where previous orders are unchanged save as to period to make payment.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the de facto husband (“husband”) seeks costs in a fixed sum against the de facto wife (“wife”) – Where the Court had dismissed the wife’s Response to the application for costs on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success and default in appearance – Where the Court took into account an affidavit of the wife over the objections of the husband – Where the wife was a self-represented litigant at final hearing – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her application for property division – Where the wife unreasonably rejected offers for settlement – Where the Court is satisfied the wife's conduct during proceedings unnecessarily increased costs for the husband – Where the wife has been non-compliant with court orders – Where the husband failed to establish a claim for indemnity costs – Orders for the wife to make partial payment of the husband’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – SLIP RULE - Where the final property orders did not make provision for the wife to receive interest accrued on monies held in a Controlled Money Account – Where the orders as pronounced did not reflect the intention of the presiding judicial officer – Where the Court found that the application of the slip rule would be an appropriate remedy – Where the Court found that the slip rule could be deployed to ensure that the wife receives her proper entitlement – Where the application of the slip rule ensures that the Court makes orders, which are just and equitable – Where the order is set aside an replaced.

EVIDENCE – Mediation agreement provided for confidentiality at mediation – Whether a Balance Sheet jointly prepared by the parties during a mediation can be adduced in evidence on questions of costs.

COSTS – Application for costs by the wife following a determination of financial proceedings – Consideration of relevant principles under s 114UB of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied there are justifying circumstances to make an order for costs – Costs to be paid as agreed or assessed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Major Complex Financial Proceeding – De facto relationship lasting 19 years and 5 months – Where it is just and equitable to make a property adjustment order – A consideration of contributions made by the parties – Where the husband made substantial initial financial contributions to the pool of assets – Where the wife then, throughout the course of the relationship, made significant contributions as the “asset manager” and homemaker – Where the husband continued to work as a tradesperson for the first 16 years of the relationship – Where some of the conduct of the husband made the wife’s contributions as the “asset manager” more arduous – Competing valuation evidence in relation to two of the properties of the parties – Where the properties in question are ordered to be sold – Where the court assesses that the contributions based entitlements of the parties are equal – A consideration of the evidentiary onus proof in circumstances where one party seeks an adjustment in respect of alleged waste or premature distribution of property – Where there is no adjustment in favour of either party pursuant to section 90SM(5) in respect of current and future circumstances – Justice and equity considered.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Where the matter was listed for final oral submissions – Where senior counsel for the respondent notified the Court of potentially relevant documentary evidence created following the close of the parties cases – Where senior counsel for the respondent sought leave to reopen proceedings to adduce a letter allegedly authored by the parties youngest child – Where senior counsel for the applicant opposed any application for leave to reopen – Where the Court granted leave to reopen proceedings – Where the Court ordered the Independent Children’s Lawyer to produce all information related to the letter, not subject to privilege – Where the Court lists the matter for further case management.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – Recovery order application – Where there are final orders in place for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the father has failed to facilitate the return of the children to the mother and comply with previous orders – Where the Court previously refused the father's application to reopen the parenting proceedings – Where the children are at risk as a consequence of the actions by the father to undermine the parenting arrangements – Recovery order made to lie on the file – Injunction made restraining the father from communicating with the children for a period of three months.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the mother seeks injunctions restraining the father from communicating to the public an account of these proceedings – Where the father has made a number of social media posts which detail aspects of these proceedings – Where the injunctions sought will supplement compliance with s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as there are special circumstances present – Injunctions granted restraining the father from communicating to the public an account of these proceedings and requiring him to remove previously posted communications.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the de facto husband and his parents for costs of the property division proceedings – Where the evidence of financial circumstances is scant – Parties’ conduct of the proceedings – Where the de facto wife was not wholly unsuccessful – Where the de facto wife bettered the offer of compromise in the final orders – No costs order justified – Application dismissed – Applicants to pay the costs of the respondent in a fixed sum

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant sought that the respondent pay his costs – Where the respondent filed no submissions in relation to costs – Where the court is persuaded that the circumstances justify the making of an order that the respondent pay some of the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the property adjustment aspect of the proceedings – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought costs by way of contribution in respect of a single expert report – Where the court is persuaded such an order is just and appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Whether leave to commence adoption proceedings is in the best interests of the children – “prescribed adopting parent” – Leave granted under s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE REASONS – PARENTING – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Where the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) made oral applications for interim orders in circumstances where the final hearing is adjourned part-heard – Where the single expert has been discharged and the Family Report struck out – Where a new single expert has been appointed and a new Family Report will be completed – Where the children have not spent time with the Father for two years – Where the Mother is pursuing a “no time” case – Where the ICL seeks interim orders for a reportable therapeutic process for the Father and the children – Where the Father seeks interim orders for a therapeutic reintroduction process following which supervised time with the children commences – Where the Mother opposes the making of further interim orders – Where orders made for the parents and the children to engage in a reportable therapeutic process for the purpose of exploring the reintroduction of the children to their Father – Where no orders made as to frequency or length of appointments – Where interim orders providing for the children to spend no time with the Father remain in force – Where liberty to relist upon the provision of a report from the therapeutic process – Where orders made amending an injunction against the Father with respect to his proximity to the children’s school.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim proceedings – Where an application for payment of children’s private school fees – where prior application for payment dismissed – where one party opposes children’s attendance at private schools – whether accrued school fees constitute joint interim liability – no order for payment.

PROPERTY – Where application to vary date fixed for sale of real property – absence of material change in circumstances – discretion not enlivened.

PROPERTY – Jointly owned business – agreement in principle to sell – orders regulating conduct of sale – restraint on unilateral communications.

VALUATION – Whether updated valuation required where business to be sold – limited forensic utility – updated valuation ordered for remaining business interests only.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expert Evidence – Where the husband sought leave pursuant to r 7.08(2)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to adduce evidence from another expert witness in relation to the valuation of the former matrimonial home – Where a Single Expert has been appointed by consent and provided a valuation report in relation to the former matrimonial home –Where the wife opposed the application for an additional expert witness – Where the Court was satisfied that an additional expert witness is necessary to ensure that sufficient evidence as to the value of the former matrimonial home is available at trial.

FAMILY LAW – Application to adjourn an interlocutory hearing and other procedural orders – Determined on the papers – Application dismissed save and except for the provision of documents by the ICL.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for a property settlement – De Facto relationship – Allegations of family violence – Allegations that respondent has retained substantial monies and assets – Limited tangible property pool – Contributions – Post-separation contributions – Adjustments pursuant to s 90SM(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and consideration of reality testing those adjustments against limited value of property.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Major Complex Financial Proceedings List – De facto relationship of over 20 years – Alteration of property interests pursuant to s 90SM – Where the parties largely agree on the form of order with the exception of a cash adjustment which requires an assessment of ss 90SM(4) and 90SF(3) factors.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY —Interlocutory application — With whom the children live and time arrangements — Allegations of alcohol misuse — Allegations of coercive control — Spouse maintenance —Injunctions — Partial property settlement — Disclosure —Where proceedings are listed for final hearing in three months — Where the parties are separated under the same roof — Where there is significant imbalance in the parties’ financial positions — Where the wife seeks partial property settlement to fund her legal representation at trial —— Interim parenting, property and procedural orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Application by wife for joinder of husband’s current wife in her personal capacity and as trustee of a discretionary trust – Where husband asserts that various cryptocurrency assets and transactions, including assets seized pursuant to a search order, relate not to his personal affairs but to business activities undertaken by him via the trust – Where husband alleges that orders made in the proceedings are impeding the business operations of the trust – Where wife asserts that the trust is a puppet of the husband or a sham designed to obscure the husband’s true financial circumstances – Where husband resigned as appointor of the trust but failed to disclose this fact – Where wife alleges that the husband’s wife has taken actions on his behalf for the purpose of defeating her claim behalf for the purpose of defeating her claim – Order for joinder made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Telephone communication – Where the parties entered into final parenting orders by consent relating to all issues save for whether an order should be made providing telephone communication between the respondent and the child – Where the applicant opposed such an order – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported such an order but proposed different terms to the respondent – Where the Court considered its own proposal – Where the Court ultimately declined to make an order for any telephone communication between the respondent and the child.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought an order that each party pay a half share of their costs – Where the applicant and respondent opposed such an order – Where the Court declined to make an order for the parties to pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the wife seeks the greater of either an equal division of the property pool or lump sum payment of $25,000,000 – Where the husband seeks the wife receive 50 per cent of sale proceeds from a Suburb P property after deduction of adjustment payments – Where the husband made significant financial contributions and the wife made non-financial contributions – Contributions assessed 38/62 in the husband's favour – Where the Court was not satisfied family violence occurred as alleged by the wife – Where the husband has significantly greater financial resources and earning capacity than the wife – Where the wife is primary carer of a child under 18 years – Where the wife's health issues have some impact on her capacity to work – Adjustment of 10 per cent in the wife's favour pursuant to s 79(5) – Final division of 48/52 per cent in favour of the husband.

PROPERTY – Substantial parcel of property owned jointly in Suburb P – Where parcel subject to subdivision approval into three lots – Where parties gave evidence after completion of the trial that one subdivided lot had been sold – Where question of how to treat uncrystallised capital gains tax liability upon sale of the remaining lots.

PROPERTY – Discussion of definition of “property” in s 4(1) of the Act – Discussion of the definition of “property” as extending beyond property recognised according to ordinary legal and equitable principles – Consideration whether statutory requirement in s 79(3)(a) of the Act to identify property does not extend beyond property recognised according to ordinary legal and equitable principles.

PROPERTY – Where there was dispute whether the husband's interests in a group of trusts and companies were considered his property or financial resources – Where the husband has interests as a discretionary beneficiary of a trust in relation to the trust's interest in the corporate group – Where the husband contended his interests were a financial resource – Where the wife contended the husband owned 15 per cent of a corporate group’s assets or had a “suite of rights” that constituted property with a value equal to 15 per cent of the total assets of the group – Where the wife's case was based on a “one transaction” approach to reading the constitutive documents of the group – Where the wife failed to precisely identify the existing legal and equitable rights and interests of the husband's “suite of rights” as required by s 79(3)(a) – Discussion of concept of property “of” a party to a marriage within s 79 of the Act – Where the Court is not satisfied the husband has “de facto” ownership over the assets of the trust or group. PROPERTY – Where the husband’s interest as a discretionary beneficiary for consideration and administration of the trust is characterised as an equitable chose in action – Where the Court declines to accept the valuation attributed by the single expert to the husband’s equitable chose in action – Where the Court is not satisfied there is evidence upon which to value the husband’s equitable chose in action – Where the husband’s interest as a discretionary beneficiary is taken into account as a financial resource under s 79(5) of the Act.

PROPERTY – Where the husband has an inchoate chose in action arising under a provision in a company constitution that gives him a right to payment on issuance of a Withdrawal Notice to exit involvement in the corporate group – Where the wife claims the husband's right to withdraw is one of the “suite of rights” valued at 15 per cent of the total assets of the group – Where the Court is satisfied the terms of the company constitution indicate the husband's right is not assignable and is “personal”, not property – Where there was no evidence the husband had an intention to issue a Withdrawal Notice and exit the group – Where the wife failed to explain why an inchoate chose in action could or should be valued as if it were a realised chose in action – An inchoate chose in action can have no value – An inchoate chose in action is not an existing legal or equitable right or interest in property and cannot be included in the property pool – Where the Court does not accept the values attributed by the single expert – Where even if the husband's interest were property, the Court is not satisfied a sufficiently certain present value exists to include it in the property pool.

PROPERTY – Where the wife failed to establish the husband's shareholding in the trustee company establishes beneficial ownership of assets held on trust – Where the Court is not satisfied the husband's shares in the trustee company can have a value derived from the assets of the group – Where the wife alternatively claims the husband's shares have a value based on his right to payment on withdrawal from the group – Where the inchoate contractual right to payment is not a right attached to the husband's shares – Where the Court is not satisfied the husband's shares have a value derived from his inchoate chose in action.

PROPERTY – Where the husband has interests as a discretionary beneficiary of a trust in relation to the trust's interests in a trust external to the corporate group – Where the husband contends his interest is a financial resource – Where the wife claims the husband's interest is property that should be included in the valuation of the group of which she claims the husband owns 15 per cent – Where the Court rejected the wife's argument that the husband owns 15 per cent of the assets of the group – Where the wife fails to establish the husband owns one third of the trust assets based on terms of a Deed of Amendment – Where the Court is satisfied the trust is separate to the group and that the husband’s interest is as a discretionary object of the trust – Where the Court is satisfied the husband's interest in the trust is a financial resource and taken into account under s 79(5) of the Act.

PROPERTY – Where the husband sought a number of adjustment payments to be deducted from the wife's share of sale proceeds from a property in Suburb P – Where the expenses are costs the husband has largely paid out of capital since separation or future costs relating to the Suburb P property – Where the wife accepted some adjustments and disputed others – Orders made for some adjustments to be deducted from the wife’s share of sale proceeds.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties were married for approximately 17 years – Where these proceedings now have clarity as to the pool of interests and tax liabilities which may arise as a result of Orders made by this Court – Final orders made to achieve justice and equity for both parties.

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 – COSTS – where the Court is satisfied that a Calderbank officer justifies departure from the usual position of each party bearing their own costs – where wife’s significant financial non-disclosure negates the success of her Calderbank offer – where no costs order is made.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting proceedings – Ex tempore Comments.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there are final orders in place for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the father has failed to comply with the final orders to return the children – Where an application was made by the father to reopen the parenting proceedings a week after final orders were made pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the mother seeks to enforce the final orders including a recovery order for the children – Where the father acknowledged and the Court finds there has been no change in circumstances – Whether the father asserts the final orders are ‘unworkable’ – Children ordered to be returned to the mother via the Court Children’s Service – Recovery order made – Not in the children’s best interests for there to be further litigation – No variation to final orders.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harmful proceedings –Where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children and/or the mother would suffer harm if the father instituted further proceedings – Order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prohibiting the father from instituting proceedings under the Act.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING – Interim application for parenting orders by the husband where the 6 year old child the subject of the proceedings is an Australian citizen who has resided in Pakistan with her mother since July 2025 – Where the wife did not participate in the proceeding – Consideration of court’s power under s 111CD(1)(e) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) including whether the subject child is habitually resident in Australia – Where it is held the court has jurisdiction but declined to make orders as sought by the husband – In the absence of the wife it is not possible to determine what orders for her future living arrangements would be in the child’s best interests – Child placed on watchlist – Interim applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Whether leave to commence adoption proceedings is in the best interests of the child – “prescribed adopting parent” – Leave granted under s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where mother of the child recently deceased – Where applicant maternal grandmother deposed that the father of the child was unknown and says nothing of paternal family – Where s 67ZBD material indicated this was not so – Where s 67ZBD material indicates child sees father and paternal family alternate weekends – Where importance of the information sharing regime and co-located officers highlighted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Financial agreement – Where the wife seeks a division of property under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where parties entered into a financial agreement – Where the wife seeks that the financial agreement be set aside – Where the financial agreement is set aside – Where the husband contended that property interests in his name were held on trust – Where the husband asserts various loans – Where both parties sought add backs – Where the Commissioner of Taxation intervened in the proceedings – Where the wife makes a Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 contention – Contributions assessed as equal – 15 per cent adjustment made in favour of the wife pursuant to s 75(2) of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where mother passed away from cancer – Where father allegedly engaged in serious persistent long term family violence against mother – Where mother’s wishes were for children to live with maternal grandmother – Where findings of serious verbal and physical family violence, including multiple punching and two acts of strangulation, by father against mother to which children were exposed: By consent children to live with maternal grandmother, who will exercise sole decision-making authority with consultation.

PARENTING – Long term supervision by family member – Where father poses an unacceptable risk of spending unsupervised time with children - Where maternal grandmother and Independent Children’s Lawyer propose long term supervision by paternal grandmother – Where paternal grandmother has shown a willingness to prioritise children’s safety over father’s interests – Where paid supervision would result in no-time - Where indefinite supervision by paternal grandmother is found to be preferable to no time – Various restraints and ancillary orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where both parties seek an alteration of property interests pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where both parties are retired – Where the wife seeks an alteration of 45 per cent of the net asset pool in her favour – Where the husband seeks an alteration of 80 per cent in his favour – Where the second, third and fourth respondents are corporate entities owned and operated by the husband –Where the husband’s initial contributions at the commencement of cohabitation were significant – Where the husband conducted significant works on the property owned by the wife – Where the wife submitted that the works have caused significant damage to the property – Where plant and equipment owned by the husband remains on the wife’s property – Orders made effecting a division of the net asset pool 67 to 33 per cent in the husband’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the respondent withheld the child from spending time with the applicant father – Where the respondent holds an implacable belief that the applicant represents an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to the child – Where the respondent is currently affected by a mental disorder impairing her ability to parent – Where the respondent is the child’s primary attachment figure but presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the child has a positive relationship with the respondent – Where it was ordered that the child live with the applicant and spend no time with the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Where the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to return the parties children to the Commonwealth of Australia after being ordered to do so – Where the respondent concedes that she had contravened a Court order – Where the respondent contends that her contravention was vitiated by reasonable excuse – Where the Court finds that no reasonable excuse is established on the evidence – Where the Court makes orders for communication between the applicant and the children – Where the Court makes orders for further submissions about what orders or penalty are to be imposed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Oral reasons for decision – All matters resolved by consent except father’s application for twice weekly facetime in addition to regular in person time – Electronic communication opposed by mother – Where clear history of family violence by father against mother – Where mother does not wish to have to engage with father - Where ICL proposes compromise once per fortnight communication - Where additional benefit of short facetime calls to children aged 3 and 5 is marginal in context of substantial in person time orders – Where requiring parents to speak regularly has a high risk of re-igniting conflict and of undermining agreement for children to spend regular time with father – Where high risk of re-igniting parental conflict outweighs marginal additional benefit of facetime communications. Consent orders made. No orders for electronic communication.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure – s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – statutory interpretation – discretionary ban on personal cross-examination.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure – litigation guardian – appearance by litigation guardian.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the corporate entities for indemnity costs of the property division proceedings – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful against the applicants – Consideration of costs of third parties – Where the wife’s conduct of her case was inefficient – Arrangement between the applicants and the husband affecting the property capable of division – Applicants’ failure to call evidence of the arrangement – Where the applicants produced unacceptable obfuscations – Costs order would not be just – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Valuation — Appointment of single expert — Companies incorporated overseas — Where one party had unilaterally contacted a proposed single expert.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – Interim orders – Where the father seeks to increase his time with the children from five nights per fortnight to week about – Application by the father seeking to travel overseas with the children to the United Kingdom and Country B – Where the parties' co-parenting relationship is poor – Orders previously made for a Family Report to be updated with appointments to occur in June 2026 – Where the Court considers it premature to make any change to the parenting arrangements pending the updated report – Application dismissed save and except for information sharing orders.

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO – Existence of de facto relationship – Where the applicant claims the parties were in a de facto relationship for 25 years – Where the respondent seeks a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) that a de facto relationship never existed – Where the respondent claims the parties only had a close personal friendship – Consideration of the nature of the relationship – Consideration of the credit of the witnesses – Where the applicant fails to establish a de facto relationship existed within the meaning of s 4AA of the Act – Declaration made pursuant to s 90RD that a de facto relationship never existed.

DE FACTO – PROPERTY – Where the applicant sought property adjustment under s 90SM – Where the Court was not satisfied of the existence of a de facto relationship – Where the Court’s jurisdiction was not attracted under Pt VIIIAB – Where even if the Court’s jurisdiction was attracted, the Court was not satisfied it would be just and equitable to make any order altering the property of the parties – Application dismissed.