Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Denial of procedural fairness – Miscarriage of justice – Where the primary judge at trial excluded self-represented litigant from Court and engaged in discussions with counsel for other parties in his absence – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted to a judge other than the primary judge for retrial – Costs certificates ordered.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Provision of transcript – Where the appellant seeks an order that the Court procure the transcripts of several hearing dates at its own expense – Where the transcript for the date of the appealed orders has already been made available to the appellant – Where appellant argues that earlier transcripts are necessary to demonstrate apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge – Where the appeal concerns an event which has already passed – Where there are several issues that are currently reserved to the primary judge – Held there is no utility in the Court providing the transcripts at its own expense – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the husband commenced proceedings in Australia seeking final and interim financial relief against the wife – Where the parties’ assets are situated in Singapore and Australia – Where the wife commenced proceedings in Singapore and applied for an anti-suit injunction restraining the husband from prosecuting the Australian proceedings – Where the primary judge permanently stayed the Australian proceedings due to Australia supposedly being an inappropriate forum – Where the husband would suffer substantial injustice if the stay order prevails – Where the primary judge was required to decide whether Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum and not whether the Singaporean courts were better suited – Where the mere balance of convenience enjoyed by a foreign jurisdiction will not justify the stay of the domestic action – Where the primary judge made several factual errors – Leave to appeal granted – Where the wife conceded the stay order was vitiated by error – Appeal allowed by consent – Consent orders made in the original jurisdiction of the Court to finalise the financial cause between the parties.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the appellant was wholly unsuccessful in her appeal – Where all respondents rely on settlement offers made to the appellant – Where the settlement offers justify costs orders – Where indemnity costs orders are not warranted – Appellant consents to fixed costs orders for a specific period – Costs ordered against the appellant on a party/party basis and in a fixed sum – Appellant permitted to offset these orders against costs orders in primary proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from a suite of interim orders – Where all but two orders do not determine rights and cannot be the subject of appeal – Where the surviving orders concerned parenting matters – Where one order gave a date for the child’s time with the father to resume pursuant to an earlier interim consent order – Where the other order dismissed contradictory and confusing orders sought by the mother – Where the grounds of appeal are broad and have little apparent connection to the two appellable orders – Appeal dismissed – Costs not sought.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant filed a Notice of a Constitutional Matter pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) the afternoon before the hearing of the appeal – Where the appellant made an oral application for an adjournment pending the s 78B notice being served on the Attorneys-General – Where there is no matter involving the application or interpretation of the Constitution raised in the appeal – Oral application for an adjournment dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the appellant made an oral application to adduce further affidavit evidence on appeal – Where the further evidence does not have any impact on the appeal – Oral application to adduce further evidence on appeal dismissed.

APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the grounds of appeal are repetitive and conflate disparate categories of asserted error – Where masking dissatisfaction with determinations as actual and apprehended bias has no value on appeal – Where complaints as to a failure to afford procedural fairness are forlorn in circumstances where the appellant left the court shortly after the trial commenced – Where the appellant complains that principles of res judicata and issue estoppel on a determination of an application for a Family Violence Restraining Order in the Magistrates Court equate to findings in Pt VII proceedings as to an absence of family violence – Where asserted factual errors are in reality a different view of the evidence – Where no complaint on appeal has merit – Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where application to relocate child interstate refused by primary judge – Where denial of procedural fairness alleged due to delay by primary judge – Where appellant alleges failure to give sufficient reasons – Where appellant alleges errors of fact and law – Where misconceived grounds of appeal contend errors of weight – Where the parties’ proposals at first instance define the parameters within which the justiciable controversy between them to be decided – Where none of the grounds of appeal have merit – Appeal dismissed – Where costs ordered in favour of the respondent

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs ordered on both an indemnity basis and a party and party basis – Misconduct of the appellant constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an order for indemnity costs – Appellant advanced an incompetent appeal – Appellant was wholly unsuccessful in appeal – Appeal found to lack any prospect of success.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – PROPERTY – Where the appellant appeals final parenting and property orders – Grounds of appeal allege failure to consider evidence, factual error, inadequacy of reasons and unreasonable outcome based upon the concept of a “range” of comparable cases – Where grounds of appeal are incompetent and do not establish plainly unjust or unreasonable outcome or other appellable error – Appeal dismissed – Discussion of the limited role of comparable cases – Appellant to pay respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – Show Cause – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed –Where final parenting orders were made between the parties in Bangladesh – Where the primary judge found jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should not be exercised when the children habitually reside in Bangladesh – Where the ground of appeal does not disclose any appealable error – Where the appeal has no prospect of success – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Where the father appeals from interlocutory parenting and property orders – Where the first appeal is allowed in part – Where orders made restraining the father from publishing or republishing portions of evidence contained within his affidavit were made without power – Where those orders are discharged – Where the second appeal lies from interim parenting and procedural orders – Where no appeal lies from procedural orders – Where the father’s bare personal opinions are not valid grounds of appeal – Where the father deliberately chose not to attend Court – Where the father abandoned the chance to either object to or test the evidence – Where the second appeal is dismissed – Applications in an Appeal to adduce further evidence dismissed – Where the mother filed Applications in an Appeal seeking an order empowering payment of outstanding monies owed to her by the father – Where this Court does not have the power to make original enforcement orders – Applications dismissed – Costs for the wholly unsuccessful second appeal awarded in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Expedition – Where the applicants’ are corporations – Where the applicants’ seek expedition of their appeal from the primary judge’s determination that jurisdiction exists to entertain a debt claim as part of the matrimonial cause between the husband and wife – Where the applicants’ proposal to remit the debt claim to the Supreme Court contradicts earlier orders made with their consent – Where the parties’ are nine days into a trial resuming this week – Where the Court is unable to see how the question of wasted costs is influential for allowing the application – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and Procedure – Show Cause – Where the applicant was invited to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from orders transferring the original proceedings from Division 2 to Division 1 – Where no appeal lies from the transfer order – Application for leave to appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father appeals from final parenting orders – Where the primary judge ordered that the father spend no time or communicate with the children – Where the father made two applications during the hearing for the primary judge to recuse himself – Where the father contends that the primary judge erred in dismissing the recusal applications – Where the father otherwise asserts various legal, factual or discretionary errors – Where there is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed – Father to pay the mother’s costs in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the primary judge found the property should be divided 60 per cent to the appellant and 40 per cent to the respondent – Challenge to the rejection of evidence – Where the affidavits in question were not admissible – Alleged failure to take into account relevant considerations – Challenges to weight – Where the primary judge included the appellant’s post-separation savings and inheritance entitlement on the balance sheet – Where these assets were not referred to as contributions by the appellant – Error established – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of the discretion – Property to be divided 70 per cent to the appellant and 30 per cent to the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Summary dismissal on court’s own motion – Where the applicant appeals against interlocutory orders made in his absence – Where no attempt was made by the applicant to vary or set aside the interlocutory orders at first instance – Where no appeal lies against refusal to adjourn – Where leave is required – Where all of the grounds of appeal are without merit – Appeal summarily dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL PARENTING – Where the primary judge dismissed the father’s application to vary final parenting orders pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where applicant disputes the primary judge's findings that there had been no significant change in circumstances – Where applicant cites the completion of various programs as proof of his changed circumstances – Where the primary judge found completion of programs per se was not evidence of significant change – Where these findings where open to the primary judge – Leave to appeal refused – Costs Appeal dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Recovery order – Where appellant father did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Where there is no merit in the appeal – Where the orders subject of the appeal are no longer operative – No utility in allowing the appeal – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to obtain the transcript – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Where the applicant seeks an expansion of the contents of the Appeal Book – Leave granted to file a Contested Appeal Book – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EX-TEMPORE – Property settlement – Where parties were in a relationship for 34 years – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions at 75 percent in favour of the respondent and 25 per cent in favour of the appellant – Primary judge made an adjustment under s 75(2) resulting in 88 per cent distribution in favour of the respondent and 22 per cent in favour of the appellant – Where the appellant argued inadequacy of reasons – A 22 per cent distribution in favour of the appellant was outside the ambit of a reasonable assessment pursuant to the test in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – Parties agreed on terms of settlement – Orders made by consent – Appeal allowed by consent – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the appellant father attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance the day before the hearing – Where the appellant did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Appeal dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Rules. -No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge determined that family violence made the respondent’s otherwise equal contributions more difficult, onerous or arduous – No error of fact – Adequacy of reasons – Error of law – Reasons as to why the primary judge made an adjustment in favour of the respondent inadequate – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – change of residence application by the father – mother’s application for children to continue living with her – children have not attended school for prolonged periods – the eldest has not bathed in two years – the mother lacks the required parental capacity – mother unable to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the children and father – mother unable to promote the best interests of the children – father able to promote the best interests of the children – no risk associated with the father – change of residence order made – imposition of a three month moratorium.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim hearing – Application for adjournment of final hearing – Where there is an apportionment of damages pending which may increase the asset pool – Where there are significant assets available for division – Where the husband opposes an adjournment – Adjournment denied – Interim property settlement – Where the parties are diametrically opposed in their positions on contributions – Where the husband does not have funds to meet projected legal costs – Where the husband can meet his living expenses – Where funds for living expenses would then be unavailable for division – Partial property settlement granted in part – Injunction on company funds – Where the wife’s use of funds has been for normal business activity – Where there is no evidence of dispositions intended to defeat the husband’s claim – Injunction denied.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – Child aged six years – Allegations of sexual abuse – Where the respondent seeks a finding that the child was sexually abused by the applicant – Where the respondent concedes in closing submissions that the evidence does not support a positive finding that sexual abuse occurred – Consideration of the reliability of the child’s disclosures – Where the child has been subjected to repeated investigations, assessments, interviews and discussions – Where the Court finds the allegations have not been proved – Consideration of unacceptable risk of harm – Where the Court finds no unacceptable risk of harm – Consideration of meaningful relationship – Where the child has not spent time with the applicant since 2023 – Where the Court finds that the child would benefit from a meaningful relationship with the applicant – Where the ICL promotes a reversal of primary care after a moratorium period – Orders for the child to spend a period of 28 days with the applicant and to live with the respondent thereafter – Orders made for a graduated increase in time with the applicant – Best interests.

FAMILY LAW – – PARENTING – Final Orders – Where the mother sought to relocate the child’s residence to the United States of America – Where the father opposed the relocation – Where the mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, that the child live with her, and various proposals for time with the father – Where the father sought joint decision-making responsibility, for the child to remain living in Australia, and for the parties to have an equal-time arrangement – Where the parties have a good co-parenting relationship – Where the mother alleges the father perpetrated family violence Where the mother suffers from adverse mental health conditions – Where the relationship between the father and the child is not able to be maintained and supported if the child relocates – Where it is not in the child’s best interests for the child to relocate.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Two pool approach – Shorter marriage – Where the parties share the care of their two young children in essentially an equal time arrangement – Where the wife has a larger income earning capacity than the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting orders are reconsidered with the agreement of the parents – Where children live with the Mother – Where final orders providing for the Father to spend time with the children were discharged at interim hearing – Where there is an extensive litigation history between the parents – Where Father seeks that children live with him – Where Mother seeks an order for no time with the Father – Where findings in previous proceedings in relation to family violence adopted pursuant to s 69ZT of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the children’s safety from harm relates to psychological and emotional harm if orders are made for time with the Father – Where orders made for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where orders made for the children to spend no time with the Father – Where certain restraints made against the Father pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Mother is at liberty to relocate to the United Kingdom with the children – Where no orders made for Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs due to the Father’s financial circumstances.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – Return of child to New Zealand – Where the mother asserts exceptions to return – Whether there is a grave risk of harm – Whether the child objects – Whether left behind parent acquiesced to the child remaining in Australia – Exceptions not made out – Order made for return of the child.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim application – Oral reasons for decision – where prior interim orders were made for mother to spend limited unsupervised time with youngest child – in circumstances where the mother has now been acquitted of the charges in a Judge alone trial in the District Court of New South Wales – where District Court reasons are now available – where District Court judge found mother to be honest and reliable witness – where expert raises concerns of alienation of child from mother – where additional unsupervised time between the mother and youngest child appropriate pending final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where final property orders were made by consent in the Supreme Court of NSW in 2008 – Application to exclude evidence based on estopped – Where the parties were in a relationship for a further 12 years – Contributions assessment – Whether the parties initial contributions were equal – Where the husband contends greater initial contributions – Where the wife seeks a contributions adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 –Where the husband denied all incidents of family violence – Where the Court finds that the husband perpetrated family violence such that a contributions adjustment is warranted – Whether the husband provided full and frank disclosure – Where the husband unilaterally borrowed funds pre and post separation without knowledge or consent – Where the wife seeks adjustment under s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Court determines 70/30 in favour of the wife is just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for adjournment – Where the husband sought an adjournment because he was unwell such that he could not attend court, that persons sought to be affected by the orders wished to be heard, an assertion of non-disclosure by the wife, and the late notice of the orders sought by the wife – Where the husband provided a medical certificate stating that he is unable to “work/study” –Where the Court is satisfied that the husband advanced no proper basis for adjournment – Where the efficient use of public resources such as courts are considerations which apply in the determination as to whether or not a court should grant an adjournment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for joinder – Where the wife seeks the joinder of three parties – Where the legal representative for the third and fourth respondents conceded that joinder was proper – Where the husband opposed the application for joinder on the basis that the wife’s relief against the parties was based on s 106B(1A) of the Act and in circumstances where the husband was not bankrupt there was no basis for the relief and thus joinder was unnecessary – Where the wife’s relief is actually predicated on s 106B of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied that given the relief sought by the wife, the evidence of the wife, and the consent to joinder by two of the proposed parties, it was necessary that the three proposed respondents be joined to the proceedings.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory – Application for use of funds held in the husband’s family law solicitor’s trust account – Where the wife sought the funds be used to pay the mortgage over the former matrimonial home – Where the husband, by his own admission, has dealt with funds contrary to orders of the Court – Where there is a persistent failure to comply with orders – Where there are clear deficiencies in the husband’s disclosure and findings of non-disclosure – Where the Court is satisfied that there are sufficient funds available to meet the order sought – Where it is appropriate that the relief sought by the wife be granted.
 

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

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Where the child presently lives with the mother and spends two nights a week with the paternal grandmother – Where the father did not appear at the trial – Where the mother has a history of illicit drug use – Where the mother recently relapsed while the child was in the care of maternal relatives – Where the maternal aunt has been a reliable source of support for the mother – Where the paternal grandmother contended the mother’s illicit drug use impairs her parenting capacity – Where the paternal grandmother sought orders for the child to live with her until the mother proves her abstinence from illicit drug use over an indefinite period – Where the State child welfare agency is satisfied with the mother’s provision of care to the child – Where the child is meeting all his general developmental milestones – Where the child has a positive and connected relationship with the mother – Where the parties mutually agree it is not currently safe for the child to have a relationship with the father – Ordered the child live with the mother and she have exclusive parental responsibility for him – Ordered the child spend overnight time with the paternal grandmother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders –Parental responsibility – Consultation – Spend time arrangements – Allegations of family violence –Where credibility issues – Where findings of use family violence made – Where findings of family violence relevant notwithstanding no issues of risk to the child – Where order made for mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where orders made for gradually increasing time with father– Where orders made for introduction of overnight time – Where certain orders made by consent – Where orders restricting international travel not made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the husband disposed of assets to defeat the wife’s anticipated relief under Part VIII of the Family Law Act – Where the wife made limited financial contributions to the children of the relationship in the period subsequent to separation.

PROPERTY – Kennon considerations as to contributions – Consideration of s 75(2) matters.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother gives evidence as to longstanding significant family violence perpetrated by the father upon herself and upon the children – Where the children corroborate their experiences as to some of the mother’s account of family violence to the ch 7 single expert – Where the potency and impact of the family violence occasioned by the father poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of the mother and the children – Orders made for the mother to be solely responsible for long-term decision making for the children, for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with or communicate with the father together with other orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Consideration of s 114UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of the role of an Independent Children’s Lawyer – Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting orders – With whom the children live – Best interests of the children – Where no current issues of risk raised – Where the Mother lives in Country B and the Father lives in Australia – Where the children have been living between Australia and Country B as part of a three-month about arrangement which was reached by consent – Where each parent’s proposal as to where the children live has advantages and disadvantages – Where orders made for the children to live with the Mother in Country B and spend time with the Father – Where orders relating to children’s time with the Father in the event they live in Country B with the Mother made by consent – Where certain orders, including in relation to joint decision-making in relation to major long-term issues and video communication with the non-resident parent, made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where property was acquired by the spouse parties from the wife’s parents at a significant discount, subject to a 20 year lease back to them – Where the wife’s parents were joined as the second and third respondents – Where the second and third respondents seek a declaration that they are the beneficial owners of the property – Pleadings – Consideration of whether the second and third respondents have an equitable interest in the property – Consideration of a lease over the property – Where there had been previous litigation in the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal regarding and upholding the lease – Where the affidavits of the second and third respondents were improperly drawn in breach of the solicitors’ professional obligations – Finding that the second and third respondents have no equitable interest in the property – Finding that the property is subject to a 20 year lease in favour of the second and third respondents – Where the wife is in receipt of lump sum and periodic compensation payments – Where the wife contributed part of the lump sum compensation payments to the purchase of a property with her subsequent partner, the fourth respondent – Where the husband seeks several addbacks – Consideration of the myriad of contributions of the spouse parties – Kennon argument by the wife rejected – Finding that, by virtue of the acquisition of the property and the compensation payments, the wife’s overall contributions were in excess of those of the husband – Adjustment in favour of the husband on account of s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) factors – Division of property 42.5 per cent to the husband and 57.5 per cent to the wife – Superannuation splitting order made approximately equalising the spouse parties’ entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Dispute in relation to property pool and value of assets – Where applicant husband operates a business and respondent wife performed homemaker duties – Insufficient disclosure by the husband caused complications in the valuation of the business – Initial contributions favour the husband – No medical evidence as to future needs or capacity – Property to be divided 52.5 per cent to the husband and 47.5 per cent to the wife – Five per cent adjustment in favour of the wife pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – adjournment application by the first respondent – adjournment sought to allow time for adversarial expert to produce a report – intended adversarial expert engaged two weeks prior to trial – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where applicant is maternal grandmother – Where child’s mother deceased and father unknown – Where major long-term decisions required for the child – Where applicant seeks an order the child live with her and her husband, the maternal grandfather – Where the maternal grandfather was convicted of possessing, accessing, producing and distributing Child Exploitation Material – Where the maternal grandfather had been named on the community reporting register for five years – Where applicant did not disclose this in her affidavit supporting her Initiating Application – Where information only came to the Court’s attention by s 67ZBD material – Where Department declines to intervene – Where Department relies on an assessment that maternal grandfather is a low risk of re-offending – Where risk assessment offends Makita – Where Court will not make a live with order giving the Court’s imprimatur to the child living with a convicted child sexual abuser – Orders made for major long-term decision making – Injunctions made for child’s safety around maternal grandfather – Undertakings of maternal grandfather and two adult sons received and accepted by the Court.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an application for the parties to share the ICL’s costs – Where the relevant principles prohibit costs orders despite the parties conduct.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount – Where the husband has not complied with orders for disposition of the application– Consideration of factors within s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied there are circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that the each party pay their own costs – Order for the wife’s costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where both parties have instructed very experienced and specialist family law solicitors – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was only recently appointed following retirement of the former Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where it is more likely than not that consideration of the competing cases will not be adversely affected if the proceedings continue without an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim proceedings –Where Family Report raises serious concerns about the father’s parenting capacity – Where ICL supports supervised time only - Where father provided no updating evidence to address the recent allegations giving rise to serious risk concerns – Orders for the children to spend daytime only with the father in the community.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where the children’s mother passed away suddenly – Where major long term decisions required – Where the children have resided with the mother, until her death, and maternal grandmother since their birth – Where the maternal grandmother has played an active role in the children’s care since their birth – Where the children’s father is not known – Where there is no reason for the applicant to return to Court for a further hearing – Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment – Where the matter has been accorded significant priority – Where the parties have undertaken significant preparations for the trial – Where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the husband caused a subpoena to issue to the wife’s former solicitors – Where the substantive proceedings relate to a challenge to a Binding Financial Agreement – Where the solicitors the subject of the subpoena were retained by the wife in respect of a claim made pursuant to s 79 of the Act – Where the wife objected to the subpoena on grounds of legal professional privilege and relevance – Where the husband contended the wife had waived legal professional privilege and that the subpoena had apparent relevance – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife had waived privilege – Where the Court is not satisfied that the subpoena had apparent relevance – Subpoena is set aside.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife makes an application for litigation funding – Where the Court finds the grounds for making an order have not been established – Where the Court makes orders for the second and third respondents to provide information.