Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Leave to appeal – Enforcement of final orders involving funds held in a foreign jurisdiction – Where the applicant was required to facilitate the transfer of funds, including executing a Power of Attorney – Where the applicant refused to execute the Power of Attorney and a senior judicial registrar executed it pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the applicant contended the Power of Attorney was invalid, exceeded the scope of the final orders and was procured by fraud – Where no evidence supported the allegation of fraud – Where the applicant contended denial of procedural fairness – Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant was afforded a full opportunity to be heard – Where none of the grounds of appeal identify any appealable error made by the primary judge – Where the appeal is without merit – Leave to appeal is refused – Costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Transcript – Where the appeal was taken to be abandoned by operation of r 13.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the appellant seeks reinstatement of the appeal – Where the proposed appeal is devoid of merit – Application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge failed to provide adequate reasons in relation to the contribution-based findings and the adjustment under s 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and further contended that the primary judge made factual errors more properly characterised as challenges to weight – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions in a segmented and compartmentalised manner – Where orders were made reflecting a division of 56 per cent to the appellant and 44 per cent to the respondent – Where the appellant made significant contributions by way of inheritance from her father’s estate shortly prior to separation– Where the Court is satisfied that the primary judge’s approach to the assessment of contributions was erroneous – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates ordered.

ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS – Where in the re-exercise of discretion, the Court is to undertake an instinctive synthesis of the matters in s 79(4), assessing the contributions of the parties holistically and not by aggregating individual components – Where the appellant’s inheritance represented nearly 50 per cent of the parties’ existing property – Upon re exercise, the appellant’s contributions assessed at 65 per cent – Where the Court was not satisfied that any matter warranted an adjustment under s 79(5) – Orders varied to reflect the revised percentage distribution of the parties’ property.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from a divorce order – Whether there was an error of fact – Whether the respondent’s conduct of the litigation was vexatious or oppressive – No error found on the part of the primary judge – Appeal dismissed – Order made for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for leave to appeal where applicant subject to a harmful proceedings order pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Appeal against findings of contravention – Where conditional term of imprisonment imposed – Whether civil or criminal standard of proof applies in proceedings resulting in an order for imprisonment – Application for leave to file a Notice of Appeal allowed with respect to whether criminal standard of proof should have been applied.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition and provision of transcript – Where the appellant seeks to expedite her appeal against interim parenting orders – Where the appellant contends the child is at a risk of harm in the care of the respondents – Where the appeal has been listed for hearing in less than three months – Where the listing amounts to an expedition of the appeal – Where the appellant seeks that the Court meet the costs of the transcript – Where the appeal is against interim orders and no cross-examination occurred – Where the grounds of appeal do not identify a need for a transcript – Appellant relieved of the obligation to provide the transcript – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave sought to institute appellate proceedings – Where the applicant is subject to a harmful proceedings order – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal final parenting orders – Where the affidavit in support of the application does not substantially comply with subsection 102QAE(3)(b) – Where the proposed appeal is without reasonable grounds and therefore is vexatious – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the final orders provide the children live with the mother and the mother to have sole responsibility, spend supervised time with the father prior to commencement of unsupervised time and family reunification therapy – Application in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dismissed – Where the appellant contends the primary judge failed to accord him procedural fairness and the reasons were infected with various legal, factual and discretionary errors – Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal are misconstrued – Where the appellant’s Summary of Argument is dense, prolix and non-compliant with the relevant Rules – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Application for the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal – Where the applicant’s appeal was allowed – Where the respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed – Where the Full Court set aside the property division orders and re-exercised the discretion – Where the respondent has to repay the applicant a portion of her original cash settlement sum – Where the respondent has significant real property – Where a number of the applicant’s grounds of appeal were unsuccessful – Where slip rule orders rendered many of the grounds of cross-appeal nugatory – Where a costs order is not justified – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Costs – Where the husband had been ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the financial proceedings on an indemnity basis in the sum of $171,900 – Where the husband appealed the substantive judgment but the appeal was subsequently deemed abandoned – Where the basis for the costs order was a range of matters, but primarily the husband’s conduct – Where no reasonable apprehension of bias – Where no failure to take into account a material consideration – Where no material error of fact – Where the husband’s grounds of appeal were unsuccessful, save only for a minor miscalculation by the primary judge as to the quantum of costs ordered – Where that error, when it became apparent to the wife and her lawyers, was conceded – Where the husband could have sought to rectify the error pursuant to the slip rule – Where the husband had already paid the costs ordered – Where, in the circumstances, notwithstanding his very modest success on appeal, the husband is nevertheless ordered to pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to the appeal – Where the overpayment by the husband by reason of the miscalculation is offset against the costs of the appeal payable by him.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Review of decision – Where the appellant seeks review of the appeal registrar’s decision to summarily dismiss the appeal – Where the Further Amended Notice of Appeal is incurably defective – Where the Court is satisfied the grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospects of success – Application dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of the respondent in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Ex parte injunctions – Procedural steps required when respondent is not heard before making an injunctive order – Importance of procedural steps to minimise procedural unfairness inherent in ex parte applications – Importance of directions for service and the allocation of a further listing date to allow the respondent an opportunity to be heard., Powers pursuant to Part VIIIAA with respect to third parties – Requirement to identify relevant “property of a party to a marriage” to engage s 90AF – Section 90AF is not a free ranging power – Party seeking orders may be required to show “serious question to be tried” in the form of a cause of action or statutory claim that relevant “property” is “property of a party to the marriage” – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 90AF.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the wife sought leave to adduce further evidence in the appeal to support an application that the appeal be summarily dismissed – Where the further evidence was contended to establish the husband to be in disobedience of an order in the proceeding – Where the wife relied on the principles identified in Watson & Watson (2013) FLC 93-530 seeking an exercise of discretion not to permit the party in disobedience of an order to be heard (“the benching rule”) – Application in an Appeal allowed – Wife’s application for summary determination of the appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – Error in relying on extraneous material – Where the error is not material so as to amount to a miscarriage of justice – Contended factual and discretionary errors not established – Contended error as to payment of capital gains tax from the default sale of real property not established – Where the possible incident of capital gains tax was considered by way of considerations, s 79(5) factors pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the form of the order made – Appeal dismissed – Order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal by the husband from a costs order against him – Cross-appeal by the wife from the costs order and enforcement orders against her for the sale of a property – Complaints about broad-brush approach to fixing costs – Where the primary judge assumed a taxation would result in a reduced costs figure – Where the primary judge’s approach was permissible – Adequacy of reasons – Where the wife’s application for indemnity costs was doomed to fail – Where the wife raised an issue with potential forgery by the husband in relation to the mortgage over a property the subject of the enforcement orders – Further evidence allowed – Where the potential forgery may render the enforcement order unreasonable – Where the evidence may have resulted in an adjournment to obtain more detailed material from the police – Cross-appeal allowed in part – Enforcement application remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the primary judge granted the respondent de facto wife leave to commence proceedings for financial relief out of time – Where the applicant de facto husband seeks leave to appeal – Where the applicant contends the primary judge erred in finding trust funds existed – Where the parties were only in dispute about the correct amount of the funds – Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness – Where the hearing was contested and the applicant was permitted to cross-examine the respondent – Where the primary judge did not err in finding the respondent would suffer financial hardship if denied leave to commence proceedings for financial relief out of time – Application for leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the primary judge varied final parenting orders governing the time the child spends with the father, commencing immediately after school – Where the mother contends the primary judge had no power to vary the final orders – Where the primary judge correctly relied upon s 70NBC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as the source of power to vary the existing final orders – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – ENFORCEMENT – Where the husband alleged the wife breached final property orders and filed an enforcement application – Where the husband appeals the dismissal of that application – Where the final orders appointed the wife as trustee for sale of two real properties – Where the orders enabled the husband to compete with other prospective purchasers to acquire either or both properties on the open market – Where the primary judge found the wife breached the final orders – Where the primary judge incorrectly found the husband tried to acquire title to the properties in an illegitimate way – Where the decision to refuse the enforcement of the final orders was plainly erroneous – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Supplementary procedural orders made to facilitate the implementation of the final orders – Costs awarded to the husband in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals from final parenting and property orders – Where the children were ordered to live with the appellant and that she have sole-decision making responsibility for them – Where the appellant complains of inadequate reasons in respect of limitations placed on her decision-making responsibilities - No error established – Where the appellant contends an adversarial report relied on by the primary judge was inadmissible – Where there was no application to exclude the adversarial report and the appellant relied on it in closing submissions – Whether the primary judge erred in her Honour’s application of s 79(3)(a)(i) and s 79(5)(v) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Treatment of monies held in trust by the respondent’s solicitor – Treatment of the respondent’s employee entitlements where he is the sole shareholder and director of the company – Treatment of missing chattels – Treatment of non-disclosure – Where the primary judge did not give adequate weight to the appellant’s initial contributions – Property appeal allowed in part – Re-exercise of discretion – Property adjustment by way of a superannuation splitting order – Parenting appeal dismissed – Costs certificates granted.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the respondent’s appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the applicant has limited financial means – Where the respondent has apparent wealth but now claims to be impecunious – Where the respondent paid security for costs of the appeal which would cover the majority of the claimed costs – Costs order justified – Whether counsel’s fees should be as charged or at scale – Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal against final parenting orders providing for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Where the mother sought to relocate with the child – Where each parent applied for the child’s residence but proposed alternatives if not granted – Whether the mother was denied procedural fairness – Where the mother alleged the primary judge should have reconvened the Court to seek further submissions on her alternative position – Where the mother had ample opportunity to present her case – Where the primary judge was not required to disclose provisional views before delivering judgment – Where the primary judge made no factual mistake in finding the father provided the child with the most stability – Appeal dismissed – Costs – Where the parties agreed costs should be in a fixed sum if the appeal was dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals final parenting orders that provide for the children to live with the respondent and have no time with the appellant – Where the primary judge found the appellant was coercive and controlling, had a “monumental absence of insight” and posed an “unacceptable risk” of harm – Where the grounds of appeal allege bias, errors of fact, challenges to weight, errors in law, inadequate reasons and unreasonable outcome – Where the appellant appeals property orders made by a different judge in a separate judgment – Where no appealable error is established in either appeal – Property and parenting appeals dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks a payment to her under either section 90SM or 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband has been non-compliant with previous orders for costs and the payment of single experts – Where it is appropriate that enforcement orders be made – Where the husband should pay a lump sum to the wife for future legal costs – Where the husband is restrained from utilising funds from an identified bank account pending compliance with orders – Where the husband is directed to sell real property if non-compliant with orders for payment.

FAMILY LAW – PROCESS AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where neither party achieved the result they sought following a three day final property hearing – Where the Applicant seeks as his primary position the costs of the property proceedings in a fixed sum on an indemnity basis – Where the Applicant made an offer to the Respondent to settle the matter on a final basis more than 12 months prior to the final hearing – Where it was unreasonable but not imprudent for the Respondent to reject the offer – Where the credibility of both parties was significantly in issue during the final hearing – Where the Respondent’s abandonment of an unmeritorious argument on the final day of the hearing did not reduce the costs incurred by the parties – Where the adverse conduct of the Applicant during the final hearing considered – Where there is no basis for ordering costs on an indemnity basis – Where benefits of ordering costs in a fixed sum considered – Where order made for the Respondent to pay the costs of the Applicant in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – LIQUIDATORS AND RECEIVERS – COMPANY LAW - remuneration application by joint and several liquidators appointed to several respondents and joint and several receivers appointed to several trusts –  large sums sought by way of remuneration – part of claim made for remuneration in respect of work not yet undertaken –  whether claimable –  whether remuneration maintainable according to the provisions of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act – remuneration ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Balance sheet items – Where the parties had not filed tax returns for many years – Consideration of whether the husband’s second wife holds her property on trust for him – Loans between the wife and her brother – Taxation issues – Add backs – Contributions favour the wife 55 per cent – Consideration of adjustment for the husband’s support of his second wife and their four children during his marriage to the wife – Where the wife had significant financial resources – No adjustment to the contributions-based finding warranted – Property to be divided 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim hearing – Litigation funding – Where husband seeks to grant charge over a property for litigation funding – Dispute over the property to be subject of charge – Where properties are owned through various entities and trusts – Where husband seeks other interim property orders including that the wife be responsible for mortgage liabilities for various properties – Where wife seeks interim property orders including sale of real property and to receive sale proceeds for litigation funding – Dispute as to property to be sold – Where parties have incurred significant legal fees – Where matter will proceed to final hearing imminently – Orders made largely in terms sought by husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – Final orders – Where each party seeks sole parental responsibility and primary care of the children – Allegations of sexual abuse by the mother’s partner towards one of the children – Grooming considered – Where there is entrenched dysfunction in the parents’ co-parenting relationship – Where the mother contends the father has influenced and coerced the children to make disclosure regarding sexual abuse – Where the mother submits that the father presents a risk of emotional harm to the children – Where the allegations of sexual abuse were substantiated by child protection authorities – Where the father contends the mother poses an unacceptable risk of psychological and/or physical harm if they are to remain living with her – The Court is satisfied that the mother has failed to act protectively of all children and to ensure their safety – Where the safety of the children has been compromised – Change of residence with sole parental responsibility to the father – Injunction made preventing contact between the children and the mother’s partner.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the husband made an oral application for the adjournment of trial – Where the wife opposed the adjournment – Where the husband recently obtained legal representation under s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband sought an adjournment to enable his solicitor to properly prepare for trial – Where the matter was otherwise ready to proceed to trial – Adjournment granted.

HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where a harmful proceedings order has been made directed to the husband – Where the husband filed two Applications in a Proceeding on the business day prior to the commencement of the adjourned trial – Where the first application seeks orders staying the financial aspect of the proceedings pending an application for leave to appeal – Where the second application seeks to suspend injunctive orders to the effect of discharging the mandatory ban on cross examination pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the first application did not comply with the mandatory requirements pursuant to s 102QAE Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband’s proposed orders are otherwise an abuse of process – Leave refused – Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where it is agreed the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Consideration of whether supervised time ameliorates the risk of harm – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek orders for no time and no communication – Where the mother is a particularly vulnerable parent – Where the mother alleges the father physically, verbally and sexually assaulted her – Where the mother alleges the father is coercively controlling – Where the father was charged and convicted of breaching an ADVO on multiple occasions – Where the father is found to be an unreliable witness – Where the Court is satisfied that the father was physically and verbally abusive towards the mother on more than one occasion – Where the father is found to have perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence – Where the Court is satisfied to the Briginshaw standard that the father sexually assaulted the mother – Where the Court is not satisfied that the risk to the child can be ameliorated – Where the father is to spend no time and have no communication with the child – Where the Court declines to make orders for the provision of information to the father – Orders made for the Department of Communities and Justice to be provided a copy of orders and reasons for judgment.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Ex tempore reasons – Where a third party to the marriage filed two interlocutory applications – Where the second application was filed a week prior to the final hearing commencing – Where the third party is a friend of the husband – Where the third party seeks to be joined as a party to the proceedings – Where interim orders were previously made for the sale of two blocks of land – Where the husband asserts one of the blocks of land is owned by the SMSF – Where the third party asserts she has an equitable interest in the property as a member and trustee of the SMSF – Where the third party became a member and trustee of the SMSF at the invitation of the husband – Where the husband previously sought orders in similar terms as now sought by the third party – Where the Court does not consider the interests of the third party are prejudiced by the sale of the blocks as ordered – Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the respondent died part way through the proceedings – Proceedings under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) put to one side – Balance sheet items – Post-separation debts – Gambling – Post-separation transfer of assets by the deceased to his daughter from a previous relationship – Inference the deceased acted to remove assets from the reach of the applicant in these proceedings – Family violence – Where the actions of the deceased make it unlikely a property division order would have been just and equitable – Consideration of circumstances since the deceased’s death – Not just and equitable to make a property settlement order.

COSTS – Unsuccessful application for joinder of the deceased husband’s adult daughter as a party – Where the relief sought against the daughter would have been difficult to obtain – Indemnity costs not warranted – Applicant to pay the costs of the unsuccessful joinder on an ordinary basis.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY –Where the husband was given opportunities to participate but did not – Where the wife says the marriage was entered into under duress, being threats made by the husband and his family to her and her family’s reputation – Where the wife puts on no affidavit evidence from the day of the marriage ceremony – Where duress not established – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where proceedings were remitted by the Full Court for rehearing – Where the wife seeks property division 65/35 in her favour – Where the husband seeks 25/75 division in his favour on a one pool approach, or that a two pool approach be adopted – Where the Court adopts a one pool approach – Where the husband made significant financial contributions and the wife made non-financial contributions – Dispute about the nature of financial assistance provided by the husband’s parents – Contributions assessed 42/58 in the husband’s favour – Where the wife is the primary carer of two children close to maturity – Adjustment of 8 per cent in the wife’s favour pursuant to s 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Final division 50/50 – Where the wife’s application for spouse maintenance and child maintenance is denied.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the wife seeks orders excluding the husband from the former matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home which is solely owned by the husband – Where the husband seeks dismissal of the wife’s application or in the alternative orders for exclusive occupation in his favour – Parties living separated under one roof for over a year – Where the wife continues to work in the husband’s pharmacy business - Court unable to make factual findings at an interlocutory hearing - Situation of conflict – Where both parties subject to ADVOs – where the wife is facing criminal charges - Two children living in the home – Court unable to determine the level of conflict - Where there is no urgent interim parenting orders sought by either party – Where the Court is unable to find either party can afford to rehouse themselves nor whether either party is clearly responsible for conflict - Where the conflict is unfortunate for the children but does not necessitate exclusive occupation to be fair, just and reasonable – Where there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate at an interlocutory stage how the children would be adequately parented if one parent was compelled to live in separate accommodation – Application and Response thereto dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory Application – Security for Costs – Second and third respondents made a further application for security for costs in circumstances where an order for $50,000 security for costs was previously made – Where second and third respondents allege that the husband’s case against them is not supported by evidence – Order for security for costs made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Where the father seeks review of an order made by a senior judicial registrar refusing to release him from his implied undertaking and his obligations under Rule 6.04 – Where the father is the defendant in criminal proceedings for offences allegedly committed against a child the subject of the family law proceedings – Where the mother opposes the father’s application – Where orders are made granting the father leave pursuant to Rule 15.26 and releasing him from the implied undertaking.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for leave to institute proceedings in circumstances where a harmful proceedings order was made on 8 November 2024 – A consideration of the requirements relating to such an application for leave – A consideration of ss 102QAC,102QAD,102QAE,102QAF and 102QAG of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth),and r 10.24 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Long-running parenting dispute (10 years) – Operative parenting order for two teenage children to live with the mother, but where the children are not currently living with the mother – Where the Court concludes that the father’s proposed proceedings are not frivolous, vexatious and nor do they amount to an abuse of process – Where the Court also concludes that the proposed proceedings have reasonable prospects of success – Leave granted to institute proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – UNDEFENDED HEARING – DE FACTO THRESHOLD ISSUE – Whether parties were in a de facto relationship after execution of a financial agreement – Where the applicant alleged de facto relationship resumed and continued until 16 November 2022 – Where the respondent asserts the relationship never recommenced – Where the applicant failed to comply with filing orders – Repeated non-attendance by the applicant and failure to attend trial and adduce evidence – Proceedings determined undefended – Onus of proof – No evidence establishing parties lived together on a genuine domestic basis – Declaration that no de facto relationship existed after 2015.

UNDEFENDED HEARING – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Where the applicant sought to set aside financial agreement – Application to set aside financial agreement dismissed – No necessity to determine enforceability or make declaratory relief concerning binding nature of agreement in absence of any remaining controversy.

COSTS – Where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful – Failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute proceedings – Evidentiary deficiencies in relation to costs claimed on solicitor/client and party/party basis – Lump sum costs order made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – final orders – three children – risks in both households – very high conflict – consent orders for mother to have sole decision making authority and children to live with mother – children to spend time with father parts of alternate weekends and parts of school holidays – various ancillary orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the trial of the proceedings commenced prior to the amendments to Part VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) effected by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) – Where agreed add-backs are included – Where the observations of the Full Court in Shinohara & Shinohara (2025) FLC 94-266 are nevertheless held to be applicable in relation to non-agreed add-backs – Where non-agreed add-backs are considered under s 75(2)(o) – Where there is no need to make specific findings under s 75(2)(o) as to amounts involved – Where the wife is required to indemnify the husband for a debt unilaterally incurred by her – Where the value of, and the parties’ interests in, their self-managed superannuation fund is unknown at trial – Where significant sums of money are held on trust, both by solicitors and in the Supreme Court of Victoria, to meet a joint and several liability – Where it is just and equitable to alter the parties’ interests in property – Where the husband made significantly greater initial contributions than the wife – Where the parties’ contributions thereafter were agreed to be equal – Where the husband’s interest in his mother’s estate, received after separation, which is the subject of pending litigation is considered under s 75(2)(b) – Where the wife engaged in significant dissipation of assets post-separation, as well as non-disclosure – Where significant funds were expended on gambling – Where non-superannuation property is to be divided 70 / 30 per cent and superannuation interests are to be split 57.5 / 42.5 per cent in favour of the husband.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Proceedings substantively resolved by consent – Where the child is 14  – Where significant weight is given to the child’s views – Discrete issues concerning decision-making responsibility considered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim Order – Where the husband seeks discharge of order for supervised time with the children – Where the wife alleges the husband poses an unacceptable risk of harm – Where there are six joint single expert witness reports, together with reports by each of the parents’ treating psychologists and supervision reports – Where there is little or no current expert evidence to support the wife’s case – Where the Court finds no unacceptable risk on the expert evidence – Where the wife contends that her genuine belief of such harm is sufficient to impair her caregiving such that it is in the children’s best interests for time spent to remain supervised – Where the Court proceeds upon the basis that the wife’s belief is genuine – Where there is little or no evidence to support the wife’s contention that her caregiving would be sufficiently impaired – Where requirement for supervised time is discharged – Where unsupervised time is ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim hearing – urgent periodic spouse maintenance – litigation funding – exclusive occupation – partial property settlement.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – application for a third party company to be joined to the proceedings – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – adjournment application by the applicant on medical grounds – adjournment application opposed – medical evidence in support of adjournment application – adjournment application granted.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Application for the child to be returned from Australia to the United Kingdom – Where the child is three – Where the mother and father agreed to relocate with the child to the United Kingdom for a period of time – Where the mother unilaterally returned to Australia with the child after four-and-a-half months – Where the child was settled in the United Kingdom and attending preschool and other activities – Where the child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom – Return Order made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks an order pursuant to s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for litigation funding and/or an order pursuant to s 79 of the Act by way of interim or partial property distribution – Where the wife quantifies her application in a sum of $300,000 – Where the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the order to be made - Application for release of funds granted in part.

PROPERTY – Where the husband seeks an order pursuant to s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for litigation funding and/or an order pursuant to s 79 of the Act – Where the husband quantifies his application in a sum of $300,000 – Where the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the order to be made - Application for release of funds granted in part.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Allegations of unacceptable risk – Where the proceedings commenced defended and concluded on an undefended basis – Where the respondent raises serious allegations of family violence, and coercive and controlling behaviour – Where the applicant discontinued his application part-way through the trial following positive admissions to perpetrating family violence –Where the respondent and Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk cannot be mitigated and sought for the applicant to spend no time with the child – Consideration of best interests – Where the Court makes findings of family violence – Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk – Orders made for the applicant to spend no time with the children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where a party seeks to join her child from a separate prior relationship as a party to the proceedings – Where person sought to be joined is a child who will shortly turn eighteen – Where joinder application is opposed by other party and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where there is little practical benefit to joining older child as a party – Where evidence of the older child’s sibling relationship with the subject children is able to be obtained through other means – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - PROCEDURAL – stay application – application of the clearly inappropriate forum test – where the respondent asserts that Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum – where the applicant resides in Region B, China  – where there are no proceedings on foot abroad - where the respondent resides in Australia – where this court has the jurisdiction and power to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties – where the stay application is dismissed – Application dismissed.