Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother had a case guardian – Where the maternal grandmother had full time care of the child – Where the father had no existing relationship with the child – Where the father sought joint decision making and live with orders – Where there is an extremely limited ability for the father and maternal grandmother to foster a co-parenting relationship – Where the Court determines that it is not in the child’s best interest to commence any relationship with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the wife seeks to relocate with the children to her country of birth – Where the parties and ICL agree the children will live with the wife and spend time with the husband – Where the parties and ICL agree the wife will hold sole parental responsibility – Where the husband has perpetrated family violence on the wife – Where the husband has failed to prioritise his relationship with the children – Where it is likely there will be strong parental conflict if the wife and children remain in Australia – Where international relocation would provide the wife access to family support and improved employment opportunities – Where the benefits to the children of international relocation outweigh the benefits of remaining in Australia – The wife is permitted to relocate to Country B with the children.
PROPERTY – Dispute as to what property is held by the parties – Where the parties are in disagreement regarding the status of a number of alleged assets – Where the wife asserts the husband has hidden or disposed of various resources – Where the wife’s evidence was generally regarded as more credible than the husband’s – Where the parties’ contributions were 55 – 45 in favour of the husband – Where consideration of the parties’ future needs results in an overall split of 52.5 per cent to the wife and 47.5 per cent to the husband.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena – Where there is an objection to a subpoena – Where the subpoena sought production of documents over an eight year period – Where compliance would require review of 765,487 emails – Where documents needed to be reviewed against the scope of the subpoena and whether there was an entitlement to claim legal professional privilege – Where it is determined that the scope of the subpoena, as drafted, was burdensome and oppressive – Where the applicant has paid retrieval costs – Where the subpoena is set aside and the applicant ordered to pay further costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where, for years with the parties’ consent, their two sons have lived with the father and their daughter has lived with the mother – Where the mother has not complied with interim orders – Where the mother has not facilitated the youngest child spending time with the father as ordered – Where the mother breached an interim injunction restraining her from moving too far from the father – Where the mother amended her application throughout the hearing – Where the mother sought orders for the two youngest children to live with her within a certain proximity to the father – Where counsel for the mother conceded there was no evidentiary foundation for the second child to live with the mother – Where the father sought orders for all children to live with him – Where the youngest child suffers from significant medical disorders – Where the father contended the mother’s diagnosed psychological conditions were liable to result in the youngest child’s needs being neglected – Where the mother has satisfactorily met the youngest child’s developmental, physical, psychological, and emotional needs – Ordered the two eldest children live with the father and spend time with the mother – Ordered the youngest child live with the mother on condition the mother relocates her residence closer to the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where both parties seek an adjustment of property interests pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where there is a consideration of s 90SF(3) of the Act – Where the property pool is modest – Where both parties sought a 70/30 division of assets in their favour – Where the husband sought add-backs – Where the wife is the primary carer of the parties’ three children – Where there was a dispute as to the date of the parties’ separation – Where the parties had outstanding debts – The Court finds a just and equitable outcome to be a 60/40 percentage division of the net non-superannuation assets in the wife’s favour – Parties to retain their respective superannuation entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks to amend her substantive relief to include the setting aside of the disposition of a real property by a corporation of the parties in the shadow of the trial that she contends was not bona fide or at arm’s length – Where the wife seeks the joinder of three additional respondents to the proceedings pursuant to r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where the joinder is resisted by one of the proposed respondents – Proposed additional respondent is a corporation whose interests are affected by the wife’s relief sought pursuant to s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where two of the proposed three additional respondents are necessary parties for the purposes of r 3.01 of the Rules – Wife’s application for leave to amend granted – Application for joinder allowed in part.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Notice of Objection to subpoena – Where the wife issued a subpoena to a corporation of the husband’s brother to produce documents relevant to her contention that the husband has sought to disguise the control and benefit of his property through his brother’s corporation, while maintaining de facto use and control of it – Where the wife contends that the husband’s brother’s corporation is the property of the husband and that his brother and the corporation are “a puppet” of the husband – Where the corporation filed a Notice of Objection to set aside the subpoena on the basis of an absence of apparent relevance, as to the scope of the subpoena being unduly onerous, as to the terms of the subpoena being vague, and as to privacy – Where the contentions as to absence of apparent relevance, the subpoena being unduly onerous, and as to privacy are not accepted – Where the terms of the subpoena may be varied such that its terms are not vague – Amendments to schedule of documents subpoena ordered.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where an oral interim application was pressed seeking greater time with the father –Where the application was sought on the final day of a part heard final hearing ¬ Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the application – Where the Court made orders to extend the father’s time with the child pending the outcome of the substantive hearing.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay her $1,806 per week in spousal maintenance – Where the husband concedes that spousal maintenance should be paid, but puts the quantum into issue – Where the husband does not put the wife’s evidence as to her weekly expenses into issue – Where the wife does not utilise one of her unoccupied real properties to produce income – Where the husband did not file and Financial Statement and did not adduce material evidence as to his financial circumstances – Where an inference is made, and the evidence establishes, that the husband has capacity to pay a reasonable periodic amount to maintain the wife – Orders made providing for the husband to pay to the wife $1,500 each week by way of interim spousal maintenance.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim hearing – Where the substantive proceedings have been adjourned part-heard – Where the husband has since caused the wife to be removed as a director of a company (“the company”) – Where the husband has assumed the role of director of the company in the wife’s stead –Where the wife sought to be reinstated as director of the company – Where the wife’s application is unsuccessful– Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where it is just and equitable to make an order – Whether the husbands contributions should be given greater weight – Whether there should be an adjustment in the husband’s favour pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where both the husband and wife seek add backs – Where the husband seeks to diminish the contributions of the wife – Where property and superannuation will be divided equally.

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 – PARENTING – Where the Court was required determine if the children ought to spend four, six or twelve supervised visits with their father each year – Where the risk to the children that could only be mitigated by permanent supervised contact – Where the safety of the mother and children outweigh the impact of substantial change – Where the Court made orders for six periods of supervised contact annually.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Ex Tempore Reasons - Where the applicants seek leave to commence adoption proceedings pursuant to s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the respondent has not been personally served with the proceedings – Where the Court is satisfied that service has been effected – Leave to commence adoption proceedings granted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks certain assets be quarantined from the assets available for division between the parties – Where the parties jointly own property with a third party –Where the wife asserts that the parties hold real property on trust for a third party – Where the third party had been a party to the proceedings but invited the Court to dismiss her claim–– Where the wife inherited an interest in real property in Country B – Where the wife asserts that non-residents cannot own property in Country B and therefore the inheritance should not be included in the asset pool – Where the wife failed to put any expert evidence on the law of Country B before the Court –– No assets quarantined – Consideration of contributions and s 75(2) factors – Consideration of justice and equity – 62.5/37.5 division of non-superannuation assets in favour of the wife – Superannuation equalised at the request of the parties.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the third party lacks capacity and was represented by a litigation guardian – Rulings made during the trial regarding the third party – Where the third party ultimately invited the court to dismiss her claim and she was removed as a party to the proceedings.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Referral of solicitor to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner – Where the application filed by the third party was fundamentally flawed – Where the litigation guardian filed no evidence in support of the third party’s claim – Where there are concerns that the solicitor appearing as litigation guardian for the third party poorly represented a vulnerable person.

COSTS - Costs thrown away of the husband to be paid by each the wife and the solicitor appearing as litigation guardian.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Long relationship – Equal contributions – Where the husband agrees to most of the wife’s orders sought – Where the area of dispute that remains to whether a settlement sum is payable and the time of the transfer of a property – Where the balance sheet is mostly agreed – Consideration of the value of the husband’s interest in multiple business entities – Consideration of the single expert valuation report – Consideration of the unreliability of the husband’s evidence – Where the husband relies on the valuation report – Where the wife disputes the same – Where the Court finds the husband’s value in the entities is nil – Consideration of s 90SF factors – No adjustment – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory application – Where the husband seeks the removal of a caveat as lodged by the wife on the former matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement – Where the wife seeks interim spousal maintenance – Where the wife seeks the appointment of single experts for various valuations – Where the wife seeks orders that the husband provide updated financial disclosure – Where the wife has an incapacity to work – Where the wife’s circumstances meet the threshold articulated in s 72 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Husband’s application dismissed – Wife to receive partial property settlement – Wife to receive interim spousal maintenance.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory orders – Where the mother has retained the children in Country B contrary to the orders of the Court– Where the mother informs the Court that she will not return the children to Australia – Where the mother has not complied with court orders and has retained the children in Country B unilaterally – Where the mothers non-compliance with an order of the Court invokes Pt 10.6 - Default of the Rules – Orders made for the interlocutory relief contained in the mother’s Initiating Application to be dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to discharge Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where respondent argues Independent Children’s Lawyer failed to independently assess the children’s best interests, acted incompetently and lacked professional objectivity – Where no evidence pointed to incompetence, lack of professional objectivity or breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Independent Children’s Lawyer – Independent Children’s Lawyers can form a preliminary view after review of the evidence – Application dismissed. 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to appoint family therapist – Where respondent wishes to engage in further family therapy for second time – Where children refuse to spend time with respondent – Parental alienation – Where there is no evidence further family therapy would be successful – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where the father passed away some time ago – Where the mother is diagnosed with a terminal illness and expected to pass away imminently – Where the applicant maternal uncle and grandmother seek parental responsibility for the children – Where major long-term decisions will be required on an urgent basis after the mother’s passing – Where the Department hold no child protection concerns or records about the children or the applicants – Where the paternal family is aware of and supportive of the application - Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where parties agreed contributions were equal – Where husband sought 50/50 division of assets – Where wife sought a 12.5 per cent adjustment for future needs plus further adjustment for justice and equity because of non-disclosure by the husband and overall division 80/20 in her favour – Where wife argued substantial non-disclosure by the husband left the quantum of the parties’ net assets unknown – Where wife sought to receive all monies held in Australia and property jointly held by the husband and the second respondent in Country T – Where wife did not establish husband’s deficiencies in disclosure merited substantial adjustment in her favour – Where wife did not establish her allegations the husband engaged in collusion and fraud with children to dissipate marital assets – Where no factual basis was established to attribute value to companies and bank accounts the wife claimed were owned by the husband – Where no single expert was agreed to value property – Where both parties sought addbacks – Adjustment of 7 per cent in favour of the wife under s 79(4)(e) – Overall division 57/43 in favour of the wife – Division of assets achieved by release of trust monies in sum of $658,010 to the wife and $24,871 to the husband. JURISDICTION – Where the second respondent has not engaged with proceedings – Where it is unclear if the second respondent was properly served – Where service was required outside the Australian jurisdiction – No dispute that rules of Pt 2.7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) were not complied with – Where there is doubt if the Court has jurisdiction in relation to the second respondent and her property in Country T – Where the wife sought an in personam injunction against the husband and second respondent to transfer to her property in Country T – Where other reasons for refusing the in personam order do not require the question of jurisdiction to be determined.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant and her legal representatives did not appear in Court for a case management event – Where the applicant’s legal representative unilaterally communicated with chambers – Where the respondent makes an oral application for the applicant’s Initiating Application to be dismissed – Where there is no probative reason why that application should not be acceded to – Initiating Application of the applicant dismissed – Orders made as to the filing of material as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife asserts that the husband has acted in a manner inconsistent with the maintenance of legal professional privilege with respect to the file maintained by his solicitor – Where the Court finds that the husband has expressly waived privilege with respect to certain topics as they relate to the parties’ competing financial applications – Where the Court makes consequent orders as to disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING – INJUNCTIONS – Breach of injunction – Enforcement of injunction – Discretion to enforce – Where there were multiple withdrawals of funds by the respondent from his company in breach of injunction in repayment of loans to him and another of his companies – Where respondent asserts prejudice if required to repay funds – Where one withdrawal was in payment of an outstanding taxation debt – Consideration of “the ordinary course of business” – Respondent ordered to repay funds to the company except for the withdrawal applied to reduction of taxation debt.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final Orders – Where a company controlled by the wife purchased and sold several properties over the duration of the relationship of the parties – Where the wife contends that the shares in a company were held on trust for her parents – Where the husband contends that he and the wife used the company for the benefit of the parties jointly and the properties purchased by the company should be part of the matrimonial pool – Where the second respondent contends that the company is the property of herself and her husband – Where the wife after separation transferred all of the shares in the company to the second respondent – The Court finds that there was not a legally enforceable obligation to repay the second respondent and that the wife was at all times the legal and beneficial owner of the shares in the company – The Court finds that the wife sought to reduce the pool of assets in these proceedings for division between her and the husband by transferring the shares to the second respondent.
PROPERTY – Final Orders – Where both parties seek an adjustment of property interests pursuant to s 79 – Where husband conceded contributions favoured wife as to 65 percent – – Where the wife contends family violence occurred throughout the relationship – Where the husband denied all incidents of family violence – Where the Court finds that the husband perpetrated family violence such that the wife’s contributions have been made more arduous – The Court finds that a just and equitable outcome was found to be a 70/30 percentage division of the parties’ property in favour of the wife.

PROPERTY – Final Orders – s 75(2) – Where the wife sought an adjustment in her favour of 10 percent by reason of her future ongoing care of the parties’ children –Where the wife has sole parental responsibility and the children are in her primary care – Where the wife receives Child Support payments from the husband – Where the wife’s income greatly exceeds the husband’s income – Where the husband sought an adjustment in his favour of 10 percent – Where the husband did not articulate a clear submission as to why there should be an adjustment in his favour – The Court find that there is no call for a further adjustment in favour of either party.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – s 95 – Overarching purpose – Statutory obligation for efficient use of judicial resources, effective disposal of cases, timely and proportionate resolution of disputes – Where matter was transferred from Division 2 to Division 1 for final hearing – Where it is unclear to the Court why the matter was transferred from Division 2 to Division 1 – Division 1 is not a dumping ground.
 

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the wife seeks a declaration to enforce various paragraphs of a final Consent Order made in 2016 – Where the order provided that the husband pay the wife 60% of WIP received from the husband’s business – Where the wife contends the husband has collected at least $1.3 million in WIP – Where the husband asserts the order provides for a 60% payment of a reconciliation adjustment – Where there has been no reconciliation adjustment – Where the husband asserts the payment obligation has not crystalised – Where the Court finds that the Consent Order does not reference a “reconciliation” or “adjustment” payment – Where the wife seeks a declaration that she be entitled to a sum certain –Consideration of calculation of the WIP received by the husband – Where the husband has failed to provide requisite disclosure – Orders for the husband to pay the wife a sum certain.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Consent orders – Oral reasons – Where father has withdrawn from proceedings but failed to file a formal notice of discontinuance – Where father is self-represented – Where correspondence from father accepted as withdrawal from proceedings – Where rule requiring filing of notice of discontinuance dispensed with – where Court Child Expert recommends no time and no communication with father – Where serious but untested allegations of family violence – Undefended hearing - Where ICL proposes court accept Court Child Expert’s recommendations and mother supports that proposal – Orders as proposed by ICL for sole parental responsibility to mother, children to live with mother, no time and no communication or at mother’s discretion, travel and passport orders for mother.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – ENFORCEMENT – Where a return order to Belgium was made – Where there are orders providing a mechanism for what is to occur in circumstances of non-compliance with the orders – Where the respondent has a history of non-compliance – Warrant activated for the apprehension or detention of the child.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Major complex financial proceedings list – Interim applications – Where the wife alleges the husband has divested himself of the matrimonial pool – Application for joinder – Application to strike out pleadings – Application for security for costs – Order made for the proposed respondents to be joined as parties to the proceedings – Leave granted to amend the wife’s further amended points of claim.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Practice and procedure – applications made for two parties to attend the hearing via electronic means – adequate arrangements made – applications allowed.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – Disqualification application – Where the Applicant makes allegations of actual bias and apprehended bias – Where the Applicant was self-represented and directed to the respective tests for actual bias and apprehended bias – Where the Applicant’s perception of bias is not sufficient to establish actual bias or apprehended bias – Where the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the outcome is not sufficient to establish actual bias or apprehended bias – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties are largely in agreement – Where the parties cannot agree on the father’s time regular or special occasion time with the children – Where it is alleged that the children are unsafe with the father – Where allegations of family violence and excessive alcohol consumption are made – Where the safety risk is contended to be mitigated by breathalyser testing – Where the risk is not mitigated – Where increased weekend time with the father is ordered – Where no overnight, special occasion or holiday time is ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – application by the father to use documents produced in family law proceedings as part of his defence to a charge prosecuted in the Supreme Court of Queensland – where the father failed to appear at the time designated for the hearing of the application - application not opposed – application granted.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Where the husband filed an application for the wife to be dealt with for 16 counts of contempt pursuant to s 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband prosecutes nine alleged contempts of an order and/or undertaking by the wife – Where the wife asserts she has no case to answer – Whether there was a flagrant challenge to the Courts authority – Where the Contempt Application against the wife is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COST ORDERS – Where an applicant seeks to depart from the principle that each party bear their own costs – Where jurisdictional issues preclude the application of the respondent – Where the respondent seeks time to pay.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY LAW – Where consent orders were made on the second day of trial – Where those orders are in terms which are just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – Stay Application – Where the Applicant seeks a stay of interim parenting orders pending the determination of an appeal – Where the Applicant has filed a Notice of Appeal – Where the Applicant was self-represented and was directed to authoritative case law concerning stay applications – Where the Applicant contended that the supervised time provided for in the interim orders is not in the best interests of the children – Where there is no evidence that the previously identified risks of unsupervised time have been ameliorated – Where it is currently difficult to assess the prospects of success of the appeal – Where the appeal will not be rendered nugatory in the absence of a stay – Where it is not in the children’s best interests to stay the interim orders providing for supervised time with the Applicant – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether either parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Whether either parent has capacity to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent – Where it is found that the mother made false claims that the father coerced her into having sex and/or raped her – Where the mother’s claim that the father sexually abused the child is groundless – Whether the child can have a relationship with both parents if she remains in the primary care of the mother – Where it is found that it is in the child’s best interests to live with the father – Where the mother will be restrained from spending any time or communicating with the child for a period of six weeks – Where following the moratorium, the mother’s time with the child will be professionally supervised until 2027.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Allegations of sexual abuse – Finding that sexual abuse did not occur – Where respondent did not encourage or coach allegations but did not respond appropriately – No risk to child with either parent – Order made for equal time.

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – Where the husband seeks to stay final orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home pending his appeal – Where the wife opposes the stay – Where the wife proposes alternative orders that would preserve the subject matter of the appeal – Discussion of the extent of the Court’s power to make orders by way of conditions of a stay – Where the Court declines to grant a stay of orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home – Orders made for the former matrimonial home to be sold as per the final orders with the sum in contention at appeal to be deposited into a controlled monies account pending determination of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother alleges the child is exhibiting sexualised behaviours – Where the mother concedes the father does not pose an unacceptable risk to the child – How major long-term issues should be determined for the child – Time the child should spend with the father – Consideration of the best interests of the child.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where husband holds significant family lands at time of marriage – Long relationship - Lengthy period between separation and trial – Uncertainties as to the value of the husband’s superannuation entitlements at the time of the hearing – Dispute as to which part of the various land holdings each party retains.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Hearing – Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on approval to record no positive findings children safe on consent orders approved - Where the father legally represented at final hearing – Where father withdrew his Response to Initiating Application and elected not to participate – Where matter progressed by way of Undefended Hearing regarding the father – Where the mother and paternal aunt reached consent orders supported by Independent Children’s Lawyer – Department of Communities and Justice (NSW) (“DCJ”) continued involvement in mother’s household - No positive finding children safe, or unsafe, in mother’s household – No other alternative orders available to Court - Orders made for children to live with mother – Orders made for children to spend time with aunt – Injunctions restraining father – DCJ to be provided with copy of orders and Reasons for Judgment.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders – Where mother wished to relocate to United Kingdom – Where the legitimate interests of an adult conflict with the best interests of children – Where the advantages and disadvantages to the children of living in Australia or relocating overseas are considered – What orders/injunctions are necessary to minimise the children’s exposure to conflict between the parents – Whether the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children by reason of ongoing denigration of the father and family violence.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where there is a challenge to the psychiatric report of the single expert psychiatrist – Where the report raised the risk of kidnapping and fleeing, as well as filicide-suicide by the mother – Where a child was removed from the mother and placed with the father on an interim basis – Where significant restrictions were placed on the mother – Where it is conceded psychiatric evidence relied upon does not support finding of unacceptable risk of harm – Where it is submitted that the single expert report should be afforded little or no weight – Where risks have been identified in the mother’s household – Where it is accepted the risks are not unacceptable – Where the child will remain living with father on an interim basis until trial.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent orders made regarding division of property interests – Where limited issues in dispute were mechanics as to timing of implementation of the orders and costs associated with redevelopment – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – personal service – overarching purpose of the rules – power to dispense with the rules.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where after hearing evidence from single expert parties reached consent about live with and decision making orders – Where the children have been living on a week about arrangement – Where orders made for week about living arrangement to continue by consent – Where issues in dispute were limited to changeover, therapies and extra-curricular activities, the extent of the father’s psychological treatment, and who should hold the passports.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - parental responsibility – where s 102NA applies – where the matter has a long and complex history - where a recovery order was previously executed – where the children have not seen the mother since April 2024 – where an Order had been made that neither party and no third party seek the children's views – where a third party asked the children their views – where the Family Report writer recommends time and communication with the mother is suspended on an interim basis – where time Orders are suspended – where telephone communication with the younger children is permitted – where the matter is set down for final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether either parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Whether either parent has capacity to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent – Where it is found that the mother made false claims that the father coerced her into having sex and/or raped her – Where the mother’s claim that the father sexually abused the child is groundless – Whether the child can have a relationship with both parents if she remains in the primary care of the mother – Where it is found that it is in the child’s best interests to live with the father – Where the mother will be restrained from spending any time or communicating with the child for a period of six weeks – Where following the moratorium, the mother’s time with the child will be professionally supervised until 2027.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife’s Application in a Proceeding seeks wide-ranging orders, primarily about disclosure – Extensive disclosure provided by the husband – Consideration of the overarching purpose and requirements of efficiency, timeliness, cost and proportionality confining the scope of arguments about disclosure – Rules about and obligations of disclosure generally not intended to place one party in a position to undertake an unreasonable, overly detailed, unnecessarily fastidious or obsessive audit of another party’s expenditure, dealings and transactions over many years – Where the evidence did not establish the husband’s existing disclosure was oppressive to the wife – Where some disclosure sought by the wife was not relevant to issues in the proceeding – Where the wife sought to discharge earlier court orders on the basis of non-compliance by the husband – Where the husband provided acceptable explanation for non-compliance – Husband granted an extension of time for compliance with orders – Application dismissed – All questions of costs reserved.