Judgments

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

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ property interests – Whether the husband failed to provide full and frank disclosure – Where the husband made greater initial contributions in the purchase price of the former matrimonial home – Where there is an absence of evidence of the extent of the husband’s claimed financial contributions during the relationship – Where the parties each undertook care of the child – Where the husband received inheritance late in the relationship – Where contributions are assessed at 65/35 in favour of the husband – Where the wife has provided the primary care and sole financial responsibility for the child since separation – Where the husband contributed to the care of the wife’s child of another marriage – Consideration of Robb & Robb – Where the husband has retired and the wife continues in employment – Where a five per cent adjustment in favour of the wife is made in relation to s 79(5) factors – Superannuation splitting order made from the wife’s superannuation.

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

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

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

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Litigation funding – Companion animals – Injunctions for exclusive occupation – Interim de facto maintenance – Where consent orders produced during the hearing compromising some interim disputes are proposed on the basis that the source of power to make them is to be characterised at trial by the trial judge – Where the making of a consent order on that basis is declined – Amended consent orders made – Consideration of whether specified animals are companion animals pursuant to s 90SM(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Interim order as to companion animals refused – Competing relief for the exclusive use and occupation of the home – Consideration of factors directing the balance of convenience favouring the orders sought by the de facto wife – Consideration as to an order for interim de facto spouse maintenance and the payment of mortgage and outgoings in respect of the home – Where the alternate proposals of the de facto husband on this subject matter are a non sequitur.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the wife seeks to enforce an order for vacant possession of a real property by a warrant for possession of the property occupied by the second respondent – Where the second respondent seeks to vary an order to extend the time to vacate the property – Where the second respondent contends she is confronted by medical challenges impacting her ability to vacate the property – Where the second respondent has secured alternate housing – Where it is equitable to limit the variation of the order to vacate the property and in failing compliance execute the issue of a warrant for possession – Where the wife makes an application for the second respondent to pay her costs of and incidental to the enforcement proceeding – Where it is just for the second respondent to pay the wife’s fixed costs within three months – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where interim orders were made for the children to live with the applicant – where the applicant seeks that he have sole decision-making responsibility, that the children live with him and that they spend supervised time with the respondent on four occasions per year – where the independent children’s lawyer supports the applicant’s position – where the respondent’s behaviour and mental health poses an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children – where the respondent presents a risk of undermining the children’s relationship with the applicant – where it was ordered that the applicant has sole decision-making responsibility, that the children live with him, and the children spend supervised time with the respondent on four occasions per year.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the interveners for the wife and the husband to pay their costs on an indemnity basis – Where the spouse parties reached an in principle agreement but proposed orders in conflict with orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales – Where the interveners were the successful plaintiffs in the Supreme Court proceedings and intervened to protect their interests – Where the spouse parties failed to progress their in principle agreement over five months – Where the wife has no income or assets – Where the wife has sole care of the parties’ child – Where the husband did not file evidence in respect of his financial position – Non-compliance with r 12.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Husband to pay the costs of the interveners on an ordinary basis.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – significant amounts involved – dispute about the validity of an alleged loan contract between the second respondent, the husband and the wife – evidence adduced by expert in Chinese law – insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of a valid loan contract – property pool divided ignoring alleged loan and instead treating money provided by the second respondent as contributions made on behalf of the wife – 75/25 division in favour of wife.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – alleged loan contracts entered into in China, not Australia – contracts governed by the law of China, not Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where each parent has a deep mistrust of the other parent – Where the parties have been engaged in litigation concerning their children since 2013 – Where final parenting orders were made in January 2016 and again in August 2025 – Where interventions by the Court have failed to restore a relationship between teenage children and their father – Where the Court placed the children into the care of the father but the children returned to their mother by their own volition in February 2026 – Where notwithstanding a finding that the mother has psychologically abused the children the Court finds that it is in the children’s best interests to remain living with the mother – Children live with mother.

FAMILY LAW – Recovery Order – Where final judgment is reserved – Where the current orders require supervised time between the mother and the children – Where the mother has retained the children – Orders made for the children to be returned to the father – Recovery Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks her costs of and incidental to responding to an application of the husband for a stay of an injunctive order pending appeal – Where the husband opposes an order for costs – Where it ought to have been plain to the husband that his application seeking a stay be withdrawn – Where the wife's costs of appearing at the hearing were unnecessarily thrown away – Order for costs in a fixed sum made in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – – CHILDREN – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where the child lost her parents in tragic circumstances – Where the child has resided with the applicant maternal grandmother since her parents’ deaths – Where the applicant has supported the child’s relationship with her paternal family – Where the paternal aunt is not a party but attended the hearing and supported orders being made on a final basis – Where the applicant requires urgent orders to administer the late mother’s estate – Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks her costs of and incidental to a relisting to obtain orders to facilitate the discharge of a ch 7 single real property valuation expert's function – Where the relisting ought not to have been necessary – Where the husband had failed to comply with his obligations as a litigant pursuant to s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where it is just to fix costs in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harman undertaking – Where the father seeks to be released from the Harman undertaking – Where the father has ongoing criminal proceedings – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer consent to use of the documents – Orders made granting the release of the documents.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs by the mother for the entirety of the proceedings – Consideration of prescribed factors relevant to making of an order for costs – Where the father continued to advance baseless allegations against the mother and maintained a position incongruent with his own evidence and concessions at trial – Where the father’s conduct during the trial resulted in extensive cross-examination – Where the father proposed a new alternative position in his final written submissions – Where the father would have more time with the child had he acceded to the mother’s final proposed orders at the start of the trial – Where the Court is satisfied it is appropriate to make a special costs order for the trial and costs application providing for the father to pay the mother’s party/party costs of the trial and costs application together with counsel’s fees and disbursements as actually incurred – Where quantum of costs as ordered is not able to be ascertained – Orders made for the mother to file a further assessment of costs as ordered, if agreement as to quantum is unable to be reached – Further consideration of quantum, if required, will be determined in chambers subsequent to both parties being afforded an opportunity to file further submissions as to quantum.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where both parties make allegations of family violence – Where contempt application is dismissed – Where s 102NA order is made.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION TO RE-OPEN – Application to reconsider final parenting orders – Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances – Whether orders made in the absence of the father constitute an abuse of process – Where the father contends the change is new evidence as to his mental health at the time of the final orders – Where the father was at liberty to obtain and adduce further evidence at the final hearing – Where the father has failed to explain why the evidence was unavailable at the final hearing – Where the father did not attend the final hearing – Where the father did not explain why he did not attend the final hearing – No change in circumstances – Application refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother seeks a harmful proceedings order against the father – Whether the mother would suffer harm if further proceedings were instituted – Where the father has not paid multiple costs orders – Where the father’s use of litigation is oppressive and harmful to the mother – Harmful proceedings order made.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – Where the mother sought sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, for the children to live with her and only spend supervised time with the father – Where the father sought orders for joint parental responsibility for major long-term issues and for the children to live in a week about arrangement – Where the mother alleged family violence, including physical, emotional and financial abuse against the father – Where the father did not identify any risk to the children in the mother’s care – Where the mother is supportive of the children’s relationship with the father, so long as it is safe – Where there is unacceptable risk to the children of emotional harm in the father’s care – Where the father demonstrated little insight into the effects of his behaviour on others – Where this risk can be ameliorated through long term supervision of time – Where a parenting order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the spouse parties had entered into final property orders by consent – Where the consent orders transferred a property owned by the wife to the husband – Where the property is the only asset of significance of the parties – Where the wife is a bankrupt – Where the applicant bank is granted leave under s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to bring proceedings – Where the applicant bank seeks to set aside the consent orders by s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) on the basis of fraud, suppression of evidence and miscarriage of justice – Where the applicant bank obtained a judgment debt against the wife in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the tort of deceit in the sum of over $10 million – Where the wife did not disclose the judgment debt to the Court when the consent orders were made – Where the Court is satisfied there has been a miscarriage of justice – Consent orders set aside – Where the applicant bank seeks to void the transfer of property under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) – Where the husband fails to establish he is a purchaser in good faith without notice of the wife's intent to defraud creditors – Where the husband seeks fresh determination of s 79 application – Where the Court is satisfied it is just and equitable for the husband to pay the wife's Trustee in bankruptcy a lump sum equivalent to 60 per cent of the net value of the real property transferred to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where a harmful proceedings order has been made directed to the father – Where the father seeks leave to file an Application in a Proceeding – Where father additionally seeks substantive orders in the leave application – Where the father’s proposed orders are an abuse of process – Leave refused – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence proceedings out of time for financial adjustment – where hardship established – where respondent opposed the application – leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property interests – Capital Gains Tax – Post-separation conduct – Exclusion of debts – Where the wife and husband conducted a highly successful business together – Where post-separation the husband has drawn large sums of money from the business – Where the husband has incurred substantial tax debts in receipt of significant income – Where the wife should not share the tax liability of the husband – Interest on unpaid tax considered to be waste – Effect of taxation liability on future and current circumstances – Treatment of contingent liabilities – Crystallisation of capital gains tax – How potential future capital gains tax should be considered – Adjustment of 58-42 in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – Property – Where the wife and the deceased husband entered a financial agreement under s 90C of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) during marriage after a brief separation – Where the applicant wife seeks a declaration that the financial agreement not be binding – The existence of ongoing Supreme Court proceedings in relation to the husband’s estate under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) – Whether the parties were separated at the time of the husband’s death – Where the parties did not sign a separation declaration prior to the husband’s death pursuant to s 90DA of the Acts.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Father’s application to vary interim order which reserve time between the children (girls aged eleven years and nine years) and the father to commence supervised time with children before a trial – Where the reconsideration of final parenting orders is listed for final hearing due to commence shortly – Where the family report by party appointed single expert witness is not yet available.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where father files multiple applications in a proceeding without seeking dispensation with the Central Practice Direction concerning subsequent and second applications in a proceeding – Where parties seek to rely on affidavits in excess of their entitlement under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 without seeking dispensation under the relevant rules.

PARENTING – Where Court is not able to make findings of fact without hearing more evidence – Where determination of interim orders sought should not be made before the final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the teenage children were born in the Commonwealth of Australia – Where the children have lived their lives in Sydney, New South Wales – Where the children have a close relationship with each of their parents, their two elder brothers and extended family members – Where the mother is engaged to a man who resides in State B in the United States of America – Where the mother wishes to relocate the children’s primary place of residence to that location - Consideration of the psychological impact on the children on removing them from Australia – Where there are doubts about the financial ability of each of the children’s parents to facilitate travel on a frequent basis – Where there is doubt about the ability of the father to enter the United States – Where delays will be associated with any visa application the mother may make permitting her to enter and remain in the United States – Where the Court declines the mother’s application that she be permitted to relocate the children’s primary place of residence to the United States.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Where the applicant father causes subpoenas to be issued to telecommunications companies, New South Wales Police, the maternal grandmother and financial institutions – Where the mother objects to the subpoenas on the basis of abuse of process, relevance and fishing – Where two subpoenas are set aside in their entirety – Where the terms of remaining subpoenas are either struck out or amended.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs by the mother – Consideration of relevant principles under s 114UB of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied there are justifying circumstances to make an order for costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for final parenting orders – Where the child ceased spending time with the father following allegations of sexual abuse – Where the father sought orders for the child to spend incrementally increasing time with him culminating in three nights per fortnight – Where the final hearing was adjourned by consent to facilitate the reintroduction of the father to the child – Where the father failed to comply with the interim orders to progress the reintroduction – Best interests of the child – Family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother – Where the window to re-establish a relationship between the child and the father has passed – Mother to have sole responsibility – Child to live with the mother – No orders for the child to spend time with the father – Protective orders for the mother and the child against the father.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – RECUSAL APPLICATION – allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias – Sunshine Loans Pty Ltd v ASIC [2026] HCA 8 applied – relevant test not made out on this application – recusal application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Where the husband seeks summary dismissal and costs – Where the wife has failed to file a security sum – Where final property adjustment orders have been made overseas – Where the wife seeks a superannuation splitting order as a discrete property adjustment – Where relief as sought by the wife is not available under s 79 – Where a consideration of what is just and equitable does not permit an approach as sought by the wife – Application has no reasonable prospects of success – Application dismissed summarily.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father and the father each seek that the subject child live with them and spend time with the other parent – Where the mother cares for a child from a previous relationship – Where the father contends that the mother’s child from a previous relationship presents an unacceptable risk to the subject child – Where the parties consent to an order that any time spend between the child and the subject child be supervised – Where the father seeks that the mother be restrained by injunction from bringing the subject child into contact with her religion – Where there is family violence – Where the father seeks the mother be restrained by injunction from travelling with the subject child – Where the parties consent to an order conferring joint decision-making for all major long-term issues with respect to the subject child – Subject child to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Both parties restrained from travelling with the subject child until the subject child is 12 years of age.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Child with autism spectrum disorder (level 3), moderate to severe intellectual disability and complex communication needs – Where the child requires constant supervision and extensive professional supports – Where the parents are entrenched in high conflict – Where the father alleges abuse and mismanagement of care – Allegations not substantiated – Impact of parental conflict on primary carer – Where the mother experiences psychological distress and caregiver burnout – Where the mother states she would relinquish care if orders made for time or communication – Evidence that position is genuine – No workable or safe pathway to facilitate father-child relationship without significant risk to the child – Least detrimental outcome – Orders for no time with the father – Sole parental responsibility to mother.

CHILDREN – Costs – Mention without application – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the second respondent was appointed as the trustee for the husband and the wife to sell a real property occupied by the husband – Where the trustee seeks by way of further mechanical orders, enforcement of orders for the sale of the property– Where the husband opposes an order requiring him to vacate the property or be restrained from entering or remaining on the property – Where orders are made permitting the husband a reasonable period to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property to the Trustee –Where orders are made for a warrant for possession to issue in the event of the husband failing to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property – Where the injunctive orders sought by the wife as to furniture in the property was defective and refused – Where the relief sought by the wife directing the function of a ch 7 single forensic accounting expert is a constructed artifice and is refused – Where the parties are directed to authority identifying principles informing the discretionary exercise in circumstances of financial disclosure failures.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother makes a series of cost applications following the conclusion of parenting proceedings – Application for costs on indemnity basis or in the alternative costs calculated in accordance with the scale – Where the father accepts that an order for costs ought be made in relation to two of the applications – Where the final hearing commenced prior to the legislative amendments provided for in the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) – Where s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies – Where the Court is satisfied to make a costs order – Father to pay the mother’s cost fixed in the total sum of $48,043.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs following parenting application – Where party wholly unsuccessful – Whether party acted unreasonably in continuing proceedings – Party-and-party costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks equal time – Where the mother proposes the children spend five nights per fortnight with the father – Parental conflict – Where neither party is a poor parent – Where the source of harm to the children is the dysfunctional co-parenting relationship – Where the children enjoy an excellent relationship with each parent – Orders made for equal time – Extracurricular activities – Dispute about the number of activities and hours spent on them – Orders made regulating the children’s extracurricular activities – Medical care – Dispute about the children’s medical and psychological care – Where the father has attempted to influence various medical and psychological professionals – Orders for the parties to facilitate the children’s continued attendance on various medical and psychological professionals.

PROPERTY – Application for property division – Balance sheet items – Payments of expert fees and legal fees – Where the husband brought real property into the relationship – Where the wife was the primary carer for the children – Where the husband was the primary breadwinner – Where the husband’s earning capacity significantly exceeds the wife’s – Dispute as to the effect of notifications to the Department of Children and Families on the wife’s ability to obtain professional accreditation and secure employment – Overall division 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex tempore reasons for judgment – Final parenting orders largely made by consent – Where the issues in dispute were limited to decision-making responsibility, spend-time arrangements and the costs of the child’s air travel – Where the parties live in different states – Where the father has historically perpetrated family violence against the mother and child – Where the father has mental health issues which are now being treated – Where the child has neurodevelopmental needs – Where there is a high level of distrust and animosity between the parties – Where the mother is to have sole decision-making responsibility in relation to long-term issues save for the child’s name – Where there is no reason to delay the increase of time between the child and father – Where the child’s time with the father is to increase to two nights per fortnight in Term 1 2027 – Where the child is to spend time with the father during the Term 4 2026 school holidays for a period of seven consecutive nights – Where the parties are to share the cost of the child’s air travel between their respective cities equally – Where the parties are to pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer costs.

FAMILY LAW – Practice & Procedure – Substituted service – Warrant to arrest – Where the applicant wife seeks an order for substituted service of a subpoena to attend court and give evidence in final property proceedings – Where the second respondent supports the wife’s application – Where the witness has been served with subpoena to give evidence and conduct money – Where final hearing adjourned and leave given to file another subpoena directed to that witness – Where several unsuccessful attempts at service of re-issued subpoena – Where the proposed witness aware of the re-issued subpoena, attempts at service and of the listed hearing date and failed to comply – Order for substituted service – Order for witness to attend adjourned hearing – Issue of warrant to arrest, with execution of warrant stayed until the final hearing date.

FAMILY LAW – Childbirth Maintenance Claim –  s. 67B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where there are unmarried parents – where the father is liable to make a proper contribution towards the maintenance of the mother during the childbirth maintenance period and towards the mother’s reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy and birth – where the costs associated with the IVF program are considered to be reasonable medical expenses in relation to the pregnancy and birth in this case – where the father asserted an oral agreement had been reached between the parties to the effect that the mother would pay the IVF costs – where the Court concluded that such an agreement (if it existed) would be void and unenforceable either because it was contrary to public policy or because the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) relating to financial agreements concerning maintenance and other related matters have not been complied with (see section 90C and section 90UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) – consideration of the matters contained in s. 67C and the other provisions of Division 8 of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the Court may make such order as it thinks proper – where the father is ordered to pay $19,762.59 to the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM HEARING – Where the mother abducted the children to the Republic of Ireland (‘Ireland’) – Where the father seeks urgent recovery of the children to the Commonwealth of Australia (‘Australia’) – Where the father is a citizen of Ireland and a permanent resident of Australia – Where the mother is a dual citizen of Ireland and Australia – Where the children were born in Australia and are Australia citizens – Where the children have lived for the majority of their lives in Australia – Where the children are 10 months of age and depend upon the mother – Where the parties make cross-allegations of family violence – Where the parties make cross-allegations of excessive alcohol consumption – Where the mother asserts that compelling her to return to the Commonwealth of Australia with the children would pose a risk to them and would be detrimental to her – Where the Court cannot make findings of fact at an interim hearing – Where the Court is satisfied that the father’s proposal ameliorates the risks asserted by the mother – Where the Court is satisfied it is in the best interests of the children for them to be returned to the Commonwealth of Australia and thereupon live with the mother and spend regular daytime with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where a non-party objector seek to review the orders of a senior judicial registrar dismissing Notices of Objection to subpoenas issued to financial institutions – Where the subpoenas sought extensive banking records of the non-party objector – Where the husband submitted the documents had apparent relevance to issues in the proceedings in circumstances where transfers had been made from the fourth respondent and the wife to the non-party objector – Where the non-party objector submitted the subpoenas were overly broad, lacked specificity and amounted to a fishing expedition – Where the receipt of funds by the non-party objector was not in dispute – Where there was no evidence the funds were derived from assets said to have been dissipated from the matrimonial pool – Where the subpoena schedule was broad and lacked particularity – Where the Court was not satisfied that the subpoenas had apparent relevance or were issued for a legitimate forensic purpose – Where the subpoenas amounted to a fishing expedition – Orders of the senior judicial registrar set aside and Notices of Objection upheld – Husband ordered to pay the costs of the non-party objector of the Application for Review on a party/party basis.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – joint application by the parties for an adjournment of the trial – outstanding expert evidence – adjournment application granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Threshold issue of whether final parenting orders should be reconsidered – Where the mother seeks the reconsideration of final parenting orders made by consent – Prima facie significant change in circumstances necessary for reconsideration – Where both parties were represented by counsel when the consent orders were made – Where the father agrees he did not take the eldest child to supervision on five occasions but continued to facilitate time between the mother and youngest child – Where the original supervision agency could no longer facilitate supervised time – Where the mother claims the cessation of supervised time is a change of circumstances – Where the mother has failed to engage with the proposed alternate supervising agencies – Where the mother’s own conduct is the basis for the supervision ceasing to occur from September 2025 – Where it is found there has not been a significant change in circumstances – Where a harmful proceedings order sought by the father is refused – Where the parties sought costs – Where both party’s applications were wholly unsuccessful – Where a costs order is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Assessment of risk – history of family violence – supervised time with the father ordered to progress to unsupervised upon his completion of a men’s behaviour change programme.

PROPERTY – Short relationship – non-disclosure by the husband – equal contributions – wife’s health needs – 15% adjustment to wife for future needs.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Application by wife for enforcement orders including appointment of receiver and manager – Enforcement application adjourned.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Whether appeal has sufficient merit to justify stay – Balance of convenience – Rights of third-party creditors – Mortgagees in possession or seeking possession of properties – Stay granted in part in respect of jointly owned properties – Stay otherwise refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to subpoena – Public interest immunity claim – Where the material was collected in response to a request under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) - Where the requestor has objected to its disclosure - Proceedings have serious allegations of sexual and psychological abuse - Whether the risk of harm of disclosing the material outweighs the risk of harm of not disclosing the material– Proper evaluation of risks of serious harm to the child - Where the public interest in disclosing the material outweighs the public interest in not disclosing the material - Public interest immunity claim refused in part.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Balance sheet items – Dispute over expert valuation evidence for a property – Dispute over the value of the wife’s companies and trust – Validity of the impairment of a loan between two of the companies – Likelihood of recovery of damages under judgments – Where tax payable by the trust is dependent on the recoverability of the loan between the two companies – Value of loans between the wife and her entities – Contributions – Significant initial contributions by the wife – Where the husband’s evidence of his involvement in the business was exaggerated – Where the wife’s parenting contributions exceeded the husband’s – No post-separation contributions by the husband – Consideration of significant interim payments to the husband – Property to be divided 20 per cent to the husband and 80 per cent to the wife – Where the Commissioner of Taxation intervened in the proceedings – Where the wife has a significant tax debt – Where the parties should share the burden of the tax debt on the balance sheet – Where the wife remains legally obliged to pay the debt – No order made for the payment of outstanding tax unless default sale orders come into effect.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to remove the Commissioner of Taxation as an intervener – Where the Commissioner filed a Notice of Intervention when the wife owed more than $8 million to the Australian Taxation Office – Where the Commissioner relied on s 79AA(10) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as a creditor who may not be able to recover their debt – Where the wife’s debt was partially reduced prior to the final hearing – Whether the Commissioner was entitled to remain a party to the proceedings – Consideration of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and the application of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the wife’s proposed orders did not make provision for payment to the Commissioner – Where the possibility the Commissioner would be delayed or hindered in recovering the debt is a sufficient interest to remain in the proceedings – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parents interstate – Where there is a history of family violence – Where there are competing risk issues in both households – Father engaged in fly-in fly-out employment – Where the father failed to facilitate relationship with mother – Children to live with mother – Mother have sole parental decision making responsibility – Time with father in school holidays.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – s 102NA application – Where 11 days of final hearing have been completed with both parties as self-represented litigants – Where the mother has recently secured legal representation – Where the father does not seek to cross-examine the mother further – Where the evidence does not support a need for discretionary protection – s 102NA application refused.

PRACTICE AND PRODCURE – Adjournment application – Where the mother seeks an adjournment on the basis of securing legal representation – Where 11 days of final hearing have been completed – Where there is substantial material for the legal representatives to review – Where two further days of final hearing have been allocated – Where the parties have had ample opportunity to pursue further material – Where it is in the best interests of the child to resolve proceedings efficiently – Where a party previously chose to conduct the proceedings without representation – late securing of legal representation for the completion of the trial – Adjournment application refused.