Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Dispute about property pool and values of assets – Financial affairs of the trust, various companies, the husband and his mother were closely intermingled – Where the husband had effective control over a trust – Where the trustee appointed the corpus of the trust to the husband’s mother after the wife raised questions of property division – Value of the trust to be included in asset pool – Whether loans from the husband’s mother are genuine liabilities in the balance sheet – Whether the self-managed superannuation fund was to be treated as segregated or pooled – Discrepancy in business accounts and dispute as to the true value of the business – Where each party pursued an extreme position as to property division – Initial contributions favour the husband – Where contributions during the marriage would be equal but for the funds provided by the husband’s mother – No medical evidence as to future needs or capacity – Whether the husband’s strategy of building wealth in his mother’s name justifies an adjustment – No adjustment to contributions-based entitlements – Uncertainty as to CGT implications – Property to be divided 65 per cent to the husband and 35 per cent to the wife.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where interim and final parenting and property orders are sought in substantive proceedings – Where the Husband pursued and then withdrew a stay application – Where the Wife is seeking the costs of and associated with the Husband’s stay application – Where there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Husband at the hearing of the Wife’s costs application – Where the Wife is receiving pro bono legal representation pursuant to a non-contingent costs agreement – Where factual circumstances are novel in this jurisdiction – Where authorities from other jurisdictions in relation to the awarding of costs in circumstances of pro bono representation considered – Section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) considered – Where section 117 incorporates the indemnity principle – Where Wife not liable in any circumstances for the relevant legal costs above an amount she has already paid – Where costs order can only be made in respect of her costs incurred – Where the Husband’s stay application was wholly unsuccessful and wasteful of time and resources – Where the Husband did not promptly respond to an offer that he withdraw the stay application – Where Husband’s asserted financial impecuniosity is not a bar to the making of a costs order – Where it is found that the making of a costs order in respect of the costs actually paid by the Wife is just – Where it is not possible to find that the Husband has engaged in a scheme with the evidence untested –Where orders made for the Husband to pay the Wife the costs of and associated with responding to the stay application in a fixed sum, being the amount of the costs she has actually incurred.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Where the respondent seeks leave to issue subpoenas for medical and employment records of the applicant – Where the applicant objects to the subpoenas on the grounds of relevance and fishing – Where the respondent has previously raised concerns about the applicant’s mental health – Leave to issue refused in relation to the applicant’s employment records and some of the applicant’s medical records – Leave to issue granted in relation to the remainder of the applicant’s medical records and clinical psychology notes with applicant to have first right of inspection and seven days to file an objection.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Ex Tempore Reasons – Where the father seeks an increase in his time spending with the children – Where the father seeks the removal of the interlock device fitted to his motor vehicle – Where there is a significant lack of trust between the parties – Where the mother asserts there is a risk of harm to the children due to the husband’s alcohol use and consumption – Where the father’s CDT testing and breath test results are inconsistent for the same period of time – Where these are interlocutory proceedings - Where the evidence is unable to be tested – Where the court considers it appropriate to continue the protective measures already in place – Where the father’s time spending with the children will remain as previously ordered – Where the report writer who prepared the previous report will prepare the updated report.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application by all parties – proceeding fixed for one month duration – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Apprehended bias - Where an application for disqualification is made during contested final parenting proceedings – Where the mother asserts that the Court assisted the father’s counsel to tender documents but provided limited assistance to the mother’s counsel – Whether comments from the bench at the conclusion of the third day of trial might cause a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Court will decide the competing parenting applications other than on its legal and factual merit.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs – Both parties seeking indemnity costs – Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis – Where there are circumstances that justify orders for costs being made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Binding Financial Agreement – Where the wife seeks a declaration that the Financial Agreement between the parties is not binding – Where neither party received independent legal advice – Where wife is a professional and prepared the Financial Agreement – Whether it would be unjust and inequitable if the Financial Agreement was not declared binding on the parties – Declaration that the Financial Agreement signed by the husband and wife is binding within the meaning of s 90G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – Application to reopen parenting and property matters – Where the father seeks to reopen proceedings regarding parenting – Where the mother did not oppose reopening of parenting matters and sought to lead new evidence herself – Where the mother subsequently sought to reopen property matters– Leave is granted to all parties to reopen evidence in parenting matters only.

Parenting - Sole Parental responsibility – Where both parents seek sole decision-making responsibility, including decision making for medical matters – Father is granted sole decision-making responsibility whilst the mother is entitled to information and input regarding the medical treatment of the children.

Property - Division of property - Where an adjustment is required - Where the wife contends that the husband has not disclosed certain financial resources that are available to him –– Court finds transactions during parties relationship did not result in an ongoing interest for the husband.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where prior decision was made for four siblings – one teenage child’s wish was to live with father - where orders were made for all siblings to live with the mother and relocate a significant distance – three younger sibling including child to spend time with father mainly in holidays - after delivery of judgment child refused to return to mother’s residence after spending time with the father – where it had been established at the prior proceedings that this child had a strong affinity to the father and had expressed a strong desire to live with him – where child continued to maintain this strong view – psychological risks to child of forced change of residence – real risk of absconding - finding in the best interests of the child to vary final orders – child to reside with the father – child’s time with mother and siblings co-ordinated so siblings spend entire holidays together.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the children should spend time and communicate with the father – Whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility and decision-making authority – Where the father is in gaol – Where the father has been convicted of multiple domestic violence offences against the mother – No time or communication between the children and the father ordered on a final basis.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION – PARENTING – where the teenage son lives with the father – where there has been strong resistance displayed by the son to spending time with the mother – reasonable attempts to comply with the orders – reasonable excuse – application for contravention dismissed – interim parenting orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the mother and father agreed that the mother should have sole parental responsibility, the children live with her, and that the children be permitted to travel overseas with the mother – Issue remains as to what time the father should spend with the children and whether it should be supervised – Where the ICL and mother sought orders for the father’s time to be once a month for not less than three hours and supervised – Where the father sought orders for unsupervised time each alternate weekend and each alternate Wednesday overnight as well as time during half of each school holiday period – Where the Court is satisfied that the arrangements that promote the safety of the mother and children are ones that provide for the father’s time with the children to be limited and supervised – Orders made for supervised time to occur at the father’s cost once a month for no less than three hours.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to New Zealand – Where the father alleges wrongful removal – Whether the father consented to the mother relocating the children to Australia – Where the mother has a mild intellectual disability and is reliant on her family for daily support – Where the maternal family have relocated to Australia –Where the mother has established a reasonable and acceptable reason for her refusal to return to New Zealand – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation established – Grave risk of harm cannot be adequately ameliorated by available protective measures – Discretion to return not exercised – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – part heard trial – competing applications for interim parenting orders.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the de facto husband caused a subpoena to be issued to the de facto wife’s solicitors for the production of the file of her previous solicitors who represented her in historical discontinued proceedings – Where the de facto wife objects to the subpoena claiming legal professional privilege – Where the de facto husband contends the de facto wife has waived legal professional privilege – Where waiver is not made out – Subpoena struck out – Where the de facto wife caused subpoenas to be issued to three corporations that have provided loans to corporations of the de facto husband – Where the de facto husband objects to the subpoenas on the basis of abuse of process, relevance, and fishing – Where such objections are not made out – Notices of Objection to subpoena are struck out.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – EX TEMPORE – INTERIM – Where both parties seek partial property settlement with the primary purpose of paying legal fees – Where the wife seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $400,000 – Where the husband concedes that there should be a partial property settlement to the wife but seeks to limit such payment to $200,000 as this amount is sufficient for the wife to pay legal fees – Where the Court is satisfied that there are potentially issues of factual and legal complexity which would warrant the involvement of senior counsel and likely extend the hearing beyond the time estimated by the husband – Where the husband seeks partial property settlement in the amount of $200,000 – Where the husband has had available to him considerable amounts of money held in offshore jurisdictions and holds most of the assets of significant value – Where orders are made for the husband to pay to the wife the sum of $400,000 – Where the Court declines to make orders for the husband to receive any partial property settlement.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Where the applicant becomes self-represented during the course of the hearing – Where s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prevents the applicant from cross-examining the respondent – Where the contravention proceedings are adjourned to ensure procedural and substantive fairness – Where the Court varies orders pursuant to s 70NBC of the Act.

RECUSAL – Where the Court has previously made credit findings about the parties – Where the Court has informed the parties that there is an arguable case for recusal – Where the parties decline to prosecute a recusal application – Where the Court recuses itself.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Voir Dire – preliminary question – whether evidence sought to be adduced by a lay witness without prior notice in cross examination is sufficiently probative to allow admission - consequence of admission of late evidence likely to be adjournment part heard of final hearing – evidence goes to significant factual issue in dispute – issue whether mother remains in a relationship with, or continues to expose children to, a person who is alleged to pose an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children - evidence relevant and potentially highly probative – evidence on voir dire admitted into evidence in trial - an adjournment will be granted if necessary to allow the late evidence to be addressed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim application - international relocation - where the mother seeks to relocate the child’s residence to New Zealand for nine months – where the father opposes that application – where the child is currently spending overnight time with the father – where the final orders sought by the mother include permission to relocate the residence of the subject child to New Zealand - where the mother’s interim application for relocation is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for an adjustment under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband was the primary income earner and the wife was the primary caregiver for the parties’ children – Issues of credit – Non-disclosure – Where the wife failed to provide items of jewellery for valuation – Where the wife has returned to the workforce but the husband has remained unemployed – Where the wife’s inheritance and superannuation must be treated as a post-separation asset – Financial orders made for payment of monies to the husband and for the wife to retain her property.

ADDBACKS – Exception not the rule –Whether legal fees of criminal proceedings should be added back – Where the wife contends that the husband should have declared bankruptcy – Where the husband was in his right to defend criminal proceedings – Where the legal expenses were reasonably incurred – Where the husband’s expenditure on legal fees was neither wasteful, reckless or wonton – Where an addback is sought due to the asserted “loss of businesses” – Where the wife’s allegations that the husband engaged in dishonest and illegal conduct does not satisfy the burden of proof – Where the husband contends that the wife’s reckless conduct led to a significant reduction in the sale price of the former matrimonial home – Where the husband asserts that the wife provided information to a journalist knowing it would create adverse media publicity and diminish the sale price of the property – Where any reduction could not be accurately quantified – Finding some items be added back with the balance to be considered under s 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

RESTITUTION – Associated jurisdiction of the Court – Where the wife sold two motor vehicles belonging to the second respondent at the time of the sale – Where the Court does not accept the wife’s account of the sale price – Where there is a lacuna in the evidence regarding the advertisement of the motor vehicles for sale – Consideration of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505 [93 ER 664] – Facilitation principle – Wife to pay the second respondent $130,000 as compensation.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissal – De facto relationship – Where Respondent sought dismissal of application for property adjustment orders and sought no property adjustment orders – Where the Applicant is self-represented – Where the Applicant is in default of orders for filing of trial material – Where Applicant has filed no trial material – Where Applicant was put on notice as to consequences of non-compliance with trial directions – Where there was an earlier threshold hearing on the question of the length of the de facto relationship – Where the Respondent has complied with trial directions – Where it was not appropriate in the circumstances to receive material filed by the Applicant on earlier occasions into evidence – Where the Applicant provided no evidence upon which a determination that it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ interests in property could be made – Where proceedings have been before the Court for a substantial period and have been subject to significant delay – Where the Applicant contended that the delay was a product of the Respondent’s conduct and her claimed disability – Where it is found that the delay is largely attributable to the behaviour of the Applicant, which includes default – Where it is found that accommodations were made for the Applicant’s claimed disability – Where r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) considered and applied – Where the practice and procedure provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) considered and applied – Where it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the application for property adjustment orders – Where the Respondent does not seek the repayment by the Applicant of funds expended from those held in trust for the purpose of paying for legal fees – Where the Respondent has indicated that an undertaking would be given to that effect – Where the Applicant’s Application in a Proceeding seeking that such of the Rules in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 (Cth) as would prevent an application for costs associated with the threshold hearing are dispensed with – Where orders made for dismissal of Initiating Application and all extant applications.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Where the applicant asserts that the respondent presents an unacceptable risk of harm – Where it is agreed that the child should live with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks that the child spend no unsupervised time with the respondent – Where the respondent ultimately seeks unsupervised and overnight time with the child – Where the child derives value from his relationship with the respondent and his sibling – Where the Court considers that ongoing supervision is appropriate.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 - 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 – 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.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother applied to adjourn the trial as Counsel was not available for personal reasons – Where trial is in a month’s time – Where no absolute right to the legal adviser of a party's choice - Where time to find alternate counsel - Where if trial was adjourned, it could not be heard for another 12 months – Where the serious allegations made by each parent against the other need to be ventilated, tested and a best interests determination made sooner rather than later – No prejudice to mother in seeking different counsel – Application dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother asks the court to request the department intervene under s 91B of the Act – Where matters relied upon by mother to support the request are dated – Where mother says “we need to know their position” – Where court not bound by any position the department may have – Where no child protection orders have been made and no engagement of s 69ZK of the Act –Where mother could issue subpoena – Where no utility in department being a party – Where no orders sought by anyone which might involve the department - Where timely determination of the children’s best interests far outweighs the delay that would be caused by making the request and waiting for the department to respond – Application dismissed.