Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application to set aside consent orders pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the applicants have failed to appear on multiple occasions – Application does not particularise an arguable cause of action with reference to s 79A – Applicants failed to file points of claim as directed – No reasonable prospects of success – Application summarily dismissed – Applicants to pay the costs of the first respondent in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Consent Orders - With whom a child lives – Father to have sole parental responsibility – Child to live with father – Spend time and communicate with mother in accordance with child’s wishes – Child aged 16 and a half years – Child conveyed view’s to the Family Consultant - Child’s views to be given significant weight.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory Application -Where an application is made for the appointment of a valuer of the respondent’s business interests when the respondent estimates that he owns assets of about $70 million – Where the relationship is of a short duration – Whether division of assets under s 79(4) of the Act requires a determination based on a percentage of assets – Whether the cost of appointing a single expert valuer is proportionate – Case management – Overarching purpose.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – modest pool – assessment of contributions – assessment of s 75(2) factors – child with special needs – whether there should be a superannuation splitting order – determination that orders enabling the wife to retain the home were just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – LEGAL PRACTITIONER – Where subpoena issued for the production of documents – Where solicitor received documents answering subpoena directly from the subpoenaed body’s solicitor – Where the other parties had not been included in that communication – Where the Court had granted view only access to documents produced pursuant to the subpoena – Where the firm had given an undertaking to not release documents to the client – Where the solicitor sent the documents to the client – Where solicitor waited a week to advise the Court contrary to the terms of the undertaking given for immediate notification – Where the email notifying the Court was inadequate in its explanation – Where neither the ICL or the father’s representatives were included in that communication to the Court, contrary to the protocol for doing so – Where papers referred to the Legal Services Commission.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – JOINDER – considerations of rules.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where respondent unilaterally relocated to Country B and subsequently child was ordered to return to Australia – Where respondent intends to relocate to Country B with child – Where primary attachment is to respondent – Whether either party will facilitate a relationship with the other parent – Order for child to live with respondent – Order permitting respondent to relocate to Country B.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Applications to adduce further evidence - Where there is no identified correlation between the evidence sought to be adduced and the grounds of appeal – Where the majority of material sought to be adduced pre-dates the making of the final orders appealed from and was available to the appellant but not tendered – Where evidence that post-dates the final orders appealed from is either inadmissible and/or not germane to the appeal – Where evidence sought to be adduced would not have produced a different result if available at trial before the primary judge – Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against final parenting orders – Where the parties lived a significant geographical distance from one another – Where neither party proposed moving their residence – Where the geographical distance between the parties did not allow the primary judge to make an order for a shared care arrangement but required that the child be placed in the primary care of one party and spend time with the other – Where almost identical practical difficulties existed in whether the child would live with the appellant or respondent – Where the primary judge found that the child had a close relationship with both parents – Where the primary judge found that the child was stable in the respondent’s care and spending time with the appellant – Where the primary judge considered and rejected the submission that the absence of evidence from the respondent’s partner was inconsistent with the outcome the respondent sought, applying the principles in Jones v Dunkel – Where primary judge’s conclusion that absence of evidence was peripheral to determination of parenting arrangements was open to him - Where appellant fails to establish error on the part of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and primary judge – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where wife sought orders that the husband and his solicitor be jointly and severally liable for the wife’s costs – Where wife seeks indemnity costs – Where husband failed to comply with orders and was wholly unsuccessful – Where solicitor failed to comply with rules and orders – Where solicitor’s conduct improper and unreasonable – Indemnity costs order made in favour of the wife against husband and solicitor.

FAMILY LAW – COMPLEX MAJOR FINANCIAL PROCEEDING LIST – Application in a Proceeding filed by the husband seeking interim orders for transfer of funds between various entities and payment of a retirement pension pursuant to ss 200F(aa) and 200G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where the husband has failed to comply with order to file a Points of Claim in the substantive proceedings – Where it is not clear what powers the husband is relying on to pursue various claims – Where, in the absence of Points of Claim and Points of Defence, it is not possible to identify the issues in proceedings – Application dismissed. 

DISMISSAL OF PART OF CLAIM – Consideration of dismissal of proceedings pursuant to s 69 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), rr 10.26, 10.27 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where matter is proceeding by way of pleadings – Where the husband contends that, as he is no longer able to obtain legal representation, he cannot comply with his obligation to file a Points of Claim – Where the husband has had ample time to comply with his obligations – Husband’s amended Response dismissed in part and the second and third respondents removed as parties.

COSTS – Where any submissions as to costs should be filed by the second and third respondents, and the husband in reply, with submissions to be considered in Chambers.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) order discharged.

FAMILY LAW – COMPANY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – shareholders’ meeting of a company in which the husband’s company and the wife’s company are shareholders along with other shareholders – husband and wife were directors – husband purportedly calling a shareholders’ meeting to remove the wife as a director – requisite notice not given – requisite notice defective in several respects – no actual meeting held – wife challenging validity of meeting and the upshot of it, namely her purported removal as a director – husband asserting defects alleged by the wife were procedural only resulting in no substantial injustice to the wife – s 1322 of the Corporations Act considered – held, substantive irregularities occurred – relief granted as sought by wife.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to issue subpoenas – Purpose of subpoena – Order granting leave to issue subpoena for documents from a particular date onwards – Order granting leave to issue subpoena with the excise of the words “and recommendations” – Leave to file updated affidavit evidence – Where any proposed updated affidavit ought be served for adjudication at the commencement of final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – RECUSAL APPLICATION – whether disclosure in open court constitutes a waiver of privilege under the Evidence Act – whether the double might test of apprehended bias had been engaged – held, privilege waived and no evidence of apprehended bias.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Consent Orders – Two real properties - Husband to pay Wife sum of $94,445.55 – Husband to pay Wife sum of $292,500.00 - Superannuation – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 90XT – Just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties had a business and financial relationship during the relationship – Where there is a lack of documentary evidence to corroborate the parties’ respective contentions – Where the parties treated the business and their purchases of real estate as a joint endeavour – Where the applicant contributed significant amounts of money to the parties’ joint living expenses and to the business – Where the respondent contributed her time in working in the business – Contributions assessed as equal – Where funds from the business were diverted to the respondent’s use after separation – Adjustment in favour of the applicant of 10 per cent – Distribution of 60:40 in favour of the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife brings an application for witnesses in her case to give evidence by audio-visual means – Where the husband and ICL oppose that application – Where there is no prejudice to the husband in having the witnesses appear via audio-visual means – Where the application to appear by audio visual means is granted.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim hearing - Spend time with mother – Time supervised by supervision contact centre – Current orders for child to spend time with mother twice a week – Mother facing criminal charges re child exploitation material – Issues with afternoon time - Orders varied for supervised contact one day per week – Who can supervise the access – ICL proposes maternal grandmother if paid supervision unavailable or unaffordable - Consideration of B & B limitations on family members supervising – The maternal grandmother can supervise where the contact centre is unavailable or unaffordable –Supervision locations - Parties to equally share supervision costs.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – DISCLOSURE – represented third parties protesting about providing disclosure pending the hearing and determination of two applications for leave to appeal – represented third parties objecting to being required to give disclosure in relation to several corporate respondents the registration of which have been deregistered – legal consequences of a company being deregistered – held, application held over to 18 September 2023.

FAMILY LAW – UNDERTAKING – Where the applicant seeks to be relieved of an undertaking to return to Australia from Country C for family report interviews and trial – Where the applicant contends she is unable to afford to return and may lose her job if required to do so – Where the respondent agrees to meet the necessary costs for flights and accommodation at first instance – Where the family report can be organised such that the mother will only be required to return to Australia once for the family report interviews and the trial – Where the applicant does not oppose the respondent spending time with the children upon their arrival in Australia.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where the respondent opposes any interim payment due to fear that, should she receive such payment, the applicant will not return to Australia – Where, in circumstances where there is no up to date financial information of the parties, the Court is unable to make an order for interim payment – Where the applicant seeks an order for the respondent to transfer the sum of $436,740 from multiple overseas bank accounts to the applicant’s trust account – Where it is not possible to make findings about contested facts at an interim hearing.

FAMILY LAW – DISCLOSURE – Where the applicant contends the respondent has failed to disclose particular documents – Where the respondent contends he has largely disclosed all documents sought by the applicant, but does not oppose an order in terms of paragraph 8 and 9 of the applicant’s application.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay application – where the father unilaterally relocated the children to Australia – where orders made for the children to return to Country B with the mother – where father seeks a stay of the orders – where the father has filed an appeal in conjunction with the stay application – where appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Injunctions – Where the respondents sought to discharge injunctions made on an ex parte basis – Where a court in Country AD has also made ex parte injunctions similar to those in Australia – Where judgment in the respondents’ application for discharge of the injunctions in Country AD is expected to be delivered by the end of August 2023 – Where court’s should endeavour to ensure that there are not inconsistent determinations in different jurisdictions between the same parties – Application adjourned to await outcome of the Country AD Court’s determination.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Mother’s application for costs – Where the substantive proceedings involved parenting and an alteration of property interests – Where the mother was wholly successful in her parenting application – Where there was an offer accepted by the mother in relation to property proceedings less than what she ultimately received – Where the father reneged on the said offer – Where costs are ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – whether an order should be made for equal shared parental responsibility – where the parents have no capacity to communicate – where the father has a history of poor mental health - whether the father’s mental health poses a risk to the children – where there are allegations of coercive and controlling family violence – whether the father’s conduct amounts to family violence under the Act – whether the father’s time with the children should occur each Saturday – whether orders should be made to permit overseas travel – whether overseas travel should be prohibited until the children attain an older age – whether the mother should be permitted to apply for passports for the children – where orders made for sole parental responsibility – where orders made permitting the children to travel overseas.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – PARENTING – Where final consent orders made on most parenting issues – Where mother also applied for interim orders for international travel with the child to attend family weddings in Europe, coming home via Country K – Where father belatedly sought orders to see the child in Country K for three days on the child’s way back to Australia with the mother – Where mother says father an unacceptable risk if allowed to see child internationally – Where question of international travel set down for final hearing in a month – Where risk can be fully examined at the looming trial – Orders made for the mother to travel with the child.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife managed the finances in the relationship – Where there has been non-disclosure, particularly by the husband – Where there are numerous bank accounts, loans and transfers – Where there are multiple informal loans from family members in Country D – Where the wife made a greater financial contribution at the commencement of the relationship and the husband made a greater contribution during the relationship – Where there is no adjustment for future needs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Two pool approach – Where the use of funds for legal expenses is added back –Unexplained use of funds regarded by the Court as a premature disposition by the husband and added back – Where the receipt by the husband of a number of payments from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is regarded as a contribution made by the husband –– Where the wife is found to have made an indirect contribution to the husband’s disability benefit entitlement – Where the husband has a number of pre-existing injuries and mental health challenges where he cannot work into the future – final property adjustment orders made that achieve justice and equity between the parties.

FAMILY LAW – FINAL PARENTING – Where the mother alleged that the father physically and sexually abused the child – Where the allegations have been extensively investigated by police and the Department – Where the mother continues to report the child’s complaints – Where each party contends that the other have perpetrated family violence – Where the father contends the Court cannot find that one party is the perpetrator of family violence – Where the father and ICL contend that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the child – Where the father and ICL seek orders that the child live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother – Where the mother seeks that the child spend no time with the father – Where the expert opines that the mother’s proposal is the least detrimental parenting arrangement – Where the father is found to have perpetrated family violence – Where gaslighting is found to meet the definition of family violence – Where it is found that the mother held a genuine belief that the child has been abused – Where orders are made as sought by the mother.

FAMILY LAW –  EX PARTE APPLICATION – Where there is a binding financial agreement providing for the sale of a property and division of the net proceeds between the parties – Where the property has sold and is due to settle in two days’ time – Where the husband is a missing person and believed to be deceased – Where the wife seeks pursuant to s 90KA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that clauses of the financial agreement requiring documents to be signed to enable the sale to be completed be enforced as if they were orders of the Court – Where an order pursuant to s 90KA will then enliven the Court’s power to make an order pursuant to s 106A to enable to husband’s sister to execute all relevant documents in the name of the husband – r 5.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) discussed – Where the wife has provided an undertaking as to damages – Where there is detriment to the wife and the husband or his estate if the sale does not proceed – Orders made ex parte.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder of additional respondents – Significant risks identified in both mother’s and father’s households – Paternal half sibling and her husband seek to intervene after approach by ICL - Person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the subject child.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband was wholly unsuccessful – Where the husband acted contrary to the overarching purpose in s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act 2021 (Cth) – Where the husband’s financial circumstances do not preclude a costs order from being made – Where the wife is not allowed costs for senior counsel – Where scaled costs are ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – parental child abduction – where the father unilaterally relocated with the children from Country B to Australia – where the children ordinarily reside with the maternal grandmother in Country B – where the mother and maternal grandmother currently reside in Country B – where the sibling group has been split, with the youngest child remaining in Country B – order for children to return to Country B with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – where the father has commenced parenting proceedings in Country B – where Country B proceedings were first in time – where the father and children are Australian Citizens – found Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear the matter – suitable for matter to be determined in Country B.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Long marriage – Assessment of contributions – Gift received from the husband from his parents regarded as a contribution by the husband – How the proceeds of a trauma insurance policy should be treated – What orders are likely to achieve justice and equity to be subject of further submissions.

CHILD SUPPORT – Application for payment of child support other than for a periodic sum (for school fees) – Just and equitable and otherwise proper to make an order.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Property – Where the wife seeks review of an interim order made by a Senior Judicial Registrar compelling the husband to pay her $300,000 – Where the wife is dissatisfied and seeks a lump sum payment totalling $1 million – Where the wife has so far received from the husband lump sum payments totalling $950,000 – Where the husband remains liable to the wife for spousal maintenance and child support payment – Where the application is not one for litigation funding – Where the wife wants the funds to use as her own property – Where the wife unilaterally entered into a building contract for $1.8 million – Where the wife is indebted to the builder – Where the parties previously agreed the wife would use the $300,000 payable by the husband to her to pay the outstanding money due to the builder – Where the $300,000 will be enough to discharge the wife’s liability to the builder – Where the husband does not have cash reserves to meet the payment of $1 million – Where the husband should not be compelled to restructure his own affairs to accommodate the wife’s plans – Application dismissed – Where the husband sought costs of and incidental to the review proceedings – Where the application was wholly unsuccessful – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS –Where the mother seeks an indemnity costs order - Where the father was wholly unsuccessful – Where the father is a sophisticated litigant – Where the father should have been aware and/or properly advised that his applications had no chance of success – Where the father’s conduct favours the making of a costs order - Consideration as to an order for indemnity costs - Where the Court is not satisfied that the circumstances of the case warrant an order for indemnity costs – Costs ordered fixed at $45,000.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – parental responsibility – spend time arrangements – where the father has spent limited time with the child – where the father has not seen the child since May 2023 – where the mother is the primary carer – allegations of family violence – where the father has ceased participating in proceedings – sole parental responsibility granted to mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – change of name – where the mother seeks to have the child’s surname changed to that of her own – where the mother and half-sister have a different surname to the child – where the child does not spend time with the father – where the child identifies his mother and half-sister as his family – change of name ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where primary proceedings concern property adjustment between husband and wife – Where there are a number of third parties who have been joined to the proceedings – Wife seeks leave to file a Further Amended Initiating Application – Where the current Amended Initiating Application includes complex claims expressed as Alternatives A and B – Wife seeks to include an Alternative C to be pressed only if Alternatives A and B fail – Where Alternative C seeks an adjournment of the proceedings until 31 March 2023 pursuant to s 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and injunctive orders preventing the entry into further financing agreements – Where the respondents opposed leave to amend on the basis that it was ultra vires and thus doomed to fail and it would cause immediate prejudice to the respondents who are third parties to the marriage – Where the objectives of the overarching purpose are best served by allowing the amendment – Court not persuaded of immediate prejudice to the respondents arising from allowing the amendment – Where allowing the amendment would enable the Court and the parties to better understand the scope of the issues – Amendment allowed – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where both parties seek a costs order against the other – Where both parties seek indemnity costs – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Where both parties made more favourable offers to settle than the orders provided – Where the evidence is insufficient to displace the starting position that each party will bear their own costs as set out under s 117(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Costs application dismissed – Each party pay their own costs of the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Sole parental responsibility –– Interstate relocation – Where the mother and father have been in an abusive relationship – Where harassment and abuse has continued after separation whilst attempting to co-parent – Where the father has had only sporadic and intermittent time with the child – Undefended hearing as against the father –– Where the relocating party seeks to relocate because of increased family support – Supervised time – Where professionally supervised time orders have not been taken up by father – Supervised time with grandparent as supervisor – Drug use by parent – Drug offence convictions by one parent – Inconsistency of time with child.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where both parties sought sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with them – Where the Court finds that both parents did not act at times in the best interests of the children – Where the mother’s use of an illicit drug exposed the children to actual harm – Where the evidence demonstrates that the mother has not used the illicit drug since April 2020 – Where both parties have been less than honest with the Court – Consideration of primary and additional considerations under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Family Consultant recommended that the children live with the father and spend time with mother – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders in line with the recommendations of the Family Consultant – Orders made for the father to have sole parental responsibility, for the children to live with him and for the mother’s time to progress to four consecutive nights.

PROPERTY – Where both parties sought financial adjustment – Where the father’s contributions exceeded those of the mother – Where the father will have the primary care of the children – Where a just and equitable outcome was found to be 18 per cent to the mother and 82 per cent to the father.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – where wife sought that respondents to subpoenas that had been set aside be held in contempt for non-production of documents – application dismissed.

COSTS – where the respondents sought indemnity costs – where indemnity costs not ordered – where costs fixed pursuant to rule 12.17 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Contempt – Where the wife alleged the husband wilfully breached several sets of interim orders – Where the wife prosecuted 15 separate counts – Where 10 counts related to interim property orders previously made restraining a corporation by injunction from dealing with numerous parcels of real estate and the proceeds realised on the sales of such property – Where the husband is a director of the third respondent – Where the husband was not personally bound by the injunctions – Where it would have been an abuse of process for the wife to prosecute the husband on these counts as pleaded – Where interim property orders were previously made restraining all respondents by injunction from encumbering five parcels of real property – Where the third respondent corporation executed a mortgage with a third party which was secured by caveat over one of the subject properties – Where the wife conceded there was no evidence to prove the husband executed the mortgage on behalf of the third respondent – Where previous interim property orders directed the husband to provide the wife with a loan account statement for one property and documents pertinent to the sale of another property – Where the wife conceded the husband had partly complied with the order, even though belatedly – Where the wife failed to prove the breach amounted to a wilful and flagrant challenge to the Court’s authority – Where the husband was previously ordered to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed sum – Where a costs order was made in the husband’s favour against the wife by the Supreme Court of NSW – Where the husband does not want to pay the wife money which he only then has to recover from her – Where this count is defective in form and lacks substance – Applicant-Contempt dismissed – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION – APPLICATION TO ISSUE SUBPOENA – Where the applicant has not complied with trial directions – Where the circumstances make it difficult to ensure the applicant is afforded procedural fairness – Final hearing dates vacated – Where the applicant seeks that a subpoena be issued to a person the respondent has at this stage not elected to call in her case – Where the applicant has not established the subpoena is necessary – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties have produced consent terms – Where the consent terms specify a percentage split – Where the consent terms rely on future sales, valuations to be made and property interests of a third party to be determined – Impermissible delegation of the judicial function to a third party – Where the court cannot be satisfied the effect of the orders would be just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Where an oral application for disqualification is made during contested final parenting proceedings – Whether the bench failed to intervene in cross-examination – Where the applicant made concessions to the questions asserted to be improper – Where questions asserted to be improper were not objected to by the applicant’s counsel – Where the questions put to the applicant were not themselves improper – Whether questions from the bench to the applicant were an impermissible foray into the contested proceedings – Where the questions asked from the bench relate to clarifying evidence and/or redirecting the witness – Where questions from the bench were neither excessive nor unfair – Body language of judge – Whether body language indicated a view of the applicant or their counsel – Where perceived eye-roll in context would not result in a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias from the bench – Re-examination – Whether ruling in respect of permissibility of questions in re-examination was improper – Where rulings on legal points adverse to the applicant are natural elements of adversarial litigation and do not without more connote bias – Whether counsel for the applicant was treated differently from other counsel at the bar table – Absent evidentiary basis for submission – Where the applicant does not establish substantial grounds for disqualification – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - Where first respondent mother will not support a relationship between child and second respondent father - Where the mother has a history of non-compliance with orders for child to spend time with the father - Where the mother has been primary carer for child - Where there will be short-term harms to child if change of residence ordered - Where child will benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father - Where long-term benefits of meaningful relationship outweigh short-term harms - Change of residence ordered.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Anti-suit injunction – Whether the husband was in contempt of court for continuing family law proceedings in Country B in contradiction of an anti-suit injunction – Where the wife has made no application to have the husband dealt with contempt – Direction that Principal Registrar make application to deal with husband for contempt.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for recusal on the basis of apprehended bias – Where father is directed to file and serve submission in respect of such.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Proceedings between father and maternal grandmother – Where the mother is recently deceased – Where the child lives with the maternal grandmother – Where the applicant consents on the final day of the hearing to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Minute of Order such that the issues in the proceedings narrow – Parental responsibility – Competing applications for sole parental responsibility – Where the parties have a history of distrust and miscommunication – History of maternal grandmother attempting to involve the father in decisions for the child – Order for shared parental responsibility and for alternative dispute resolution where decision cannot be reached jointly – Meaningful relationship – Where the child has a positive relationship with both parties – Where the child’s relationship with the maternal grandmother is more secure – Proposal for changing the child’s living arrangements – Where any significant change to the current parenting arrangements would be likely to result in significant emotional dysregulation – Issue of passport – Where it is in the best interests of the child to have a passport.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim hearing – 9-18 month de facto relationship – one child - where approximately $10-11 million property pool – where wife has received $2.3 million in interim property payments and has $1.8 million cash – where wife seeks substantial ongoing spouse maintenance, child support variation and litigation funding, or further interim property payment, on basis that $1.8 million should be quarantined to purchase outright a house in Suburb B and that she is therefore unable to adequately support herself and the parties child – where husband’s recent pleadings concede wife’s entitlement to a further $272,395 in property alteration on his assessment of property pool – where significant funds available in controlled money account: Held. Dismiss applications for spouse maintenance, child support variation and litigation funding. Order further interim property distribution of $272,395.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Preliminary issue – Where the husband sought equitable relief against the wife’s parents in relation to a property owned by them – Where the husband principally sought a declaration that the wife’s parents hold the property on trust for the husband and wife and a transfer of the property to them – Where the husband sought alternative claims for an equitable charge or equitable compensation – Whether the husband may litigate a claim for equitable relief on the wife’s behalf – Where the husband relies upon a number of alleged representations made by the parents that the property would be transferred to the husband and wife – Where the parties’ and their witnesses’ evidence was approached with circumspection given the length of time between the events and the trial – Where there was little contemporaneous evidence of the alleged representations – Where contemporaneous records or events themselves were afforded greater weight than mere purported recollection – Where the Court is not satisfied any of the representations were made in the terms, or having the purport, asserted by the husband – Where the husband’s claim fails at the first hurdle – Where the balance of the husband’s claim is resolved in any event – Inducement – Where there is staggering disproportionality between the claimed detriment and the asserted entitlement to the property – Where the husband’s claim against the parents fails and is dismissed.