Division 1 - First instance
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where both parties sought urgent mandatory injunctive orders regulating the process of completing an exchanged contract for the sale of real property subject to a notice to complete –Where the final relief sought by both parties was incompetent and abuse of process – Where the parties had multiple opportunities to amend their final orders sought – Where neither party could identify the source of power to ground their respective substantive relief sought – Where the success of the interlocutory injunctive relief sought by each party was improbable – Where both parties sought leave to withdraw their Initiating Application and Response to Initiating Application – Orders made providing both parties with such leave – No order as to costs.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – STAY – where the father seeks a stay of parenting orders pending the hearing and finalisation of an appeal – where the stay is not in the best interests of the children – where the application is dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL REOCATION – Where the mother seeks to relocate the children to live in Country B for 18 months – Where the father opposes that application – Where the father has significant mental health issues – Where the children are currently spending supervised time with the father – Where relocation of the children to Country B until mid-2025 is found to be in the children’s best interests.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Where dispute arose relating to interpretation of final orders – Where the literal interpretation of the orders supported by the first and fourth respondents prioritised the interests of caveators over the applicant – Where the reasons for judgment stated the first respondent should be solely responsible for the liabilities subject of caveats – Orders made did not reflect the intention of the Court – Variation of orders pursuant to r 10.13(e).
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate to the United States of America (“USA”) with the child – Where the father opposes the relocation application – Where there are allegations of family violence against the father – Where there are credibility issues with the mother’s evidence – Where the mother must return to the USA upon expiration of her visa – Where the Court finds it is in the best interests of the child to live with the father in Australia.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the mother seeks a lump sum payment from the father – Where the father opposes this application – Where the father seeks for spousal maintenance to be discharged – Where the father made greater financial contributions – Where there is an adjustment in favour of the mother for future needs.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband and his brother sought costs against the wife in relation to an application for joinder of the husband’s brother which was unsuccessful – Where the circumstances are not exceptional to warrant an indemnity costs order – Consideration of factors in s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband’s brother elected to provide no evidence as to his financial circumstances and the Court is therefore unable to assess and determine if it would be just to make a costs order – Where some of the husband’s submissions were absent foundation – Where the Court has made findings that the husband has failed to make full and frank disclosure – Applications dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the parties seek declarations that property is held by the husband on trust for his father – where the proceedings had been bifurcated – where the parties submitted a minute of consent orders to settle the bifurcated issue – whether the court has accrued jurisdiction to make the declarations and consequential orders sought – whether the court can make the declarations by consent – the court has jurisdiction to make the orders – declarations and orders made by consent
FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – husband’s application to restrain wife from convening an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders for the removal of the husband as a director of LPYI – other applications also brought by husband including an order restraining wife from entering LPYI’s premises – applications dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the final hearing has been adjourned part-heard for over one year – Where the applicant mother, through her litigation guardian, filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to adjourn the recommencement of the final hearing and to be granted leave to appeal the order appointing a litigation guardian – Where the primary judge does not have power to grant leave to appeal – Where the mother seeks that the trial be adjourned in circumstances where she is unrepresented and she contends the evidence before the Court is out of date – Where legal representation is a privilege, not a right – Where the mother has had in excess of one year to update her evidence and prepare her case – Where is it not in the best interests of the child to further adjourn the matter – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parenting – Where the parties’ relationship is of high conflict – Where there are prior concerns by the respondent with respect to the applicant’s alcohol use – Where restraints made on an interim basis require the applicant to maintain a blood alcohol level above 0.0 when the child is in their care – Where the Court proposed orders requiring the applicant to undergo Carbohydrate-Deficient Transferrin (“CDT”) testing for alcohol consumption – Where the respondent sought to rely upon any adverse inferences drawn if the applicant did not produce evidence with respect to alcohol consumption at final hearing – Parties afforded opportunity to provide Written Submissions – Where the applicant consents to undergoing testing – No matters of principle – Orders made in accordance with applicant’s proposed terms for CDT testing.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Where the mother seeks to be able to relocate the parents’ five year old child to live with her in the United Kingdom – Where the father opposes the relocation and seeks that the child live primarily live with him – where it is in the child’s best interests to continue to live with the mother – the relocation is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where there is one child of the marriage – where the husband is 38 years of age – where the wife is 36 years of age – where the duration of the relationship was about 12 years – where the husband made significant financial contributions because his income was larger than that of the wife –where the wife made financial contributions for the first nine years of the relationship and then made the overwhelming parenting contributions – where the husband has had the sole benefit of the former matrimonial home since August 2020 – where the husband’s earning capacity is no less than three times that of the wife – where the wife has not worked for remuneration since the end of 2017 – where the wife will bear the vast majority of the responsibility for the care of the child in the future.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the parties were separated under one roof for a period of time – Where the children currently live with the mother and spend time with the father – Where the mother makes allegations of abuse by the father against the mother and the children – Where reports were made to the Police and the Department of Communities and Justice – Where the mother denigrates the father and the paternal family in front of the children – Where the mother has excluded the father from information regarding the children - Where the Single Expert recommends the children live with the parent which is more likely to facilitate time with the other parent – Where the father is more likely to facilitate time between the mother and the children – Where the Court finds the father is not a perpetuator of family violence - Orders for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Orders for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
PROPERTY – Where the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the mother made more income than the father – Where the mother came into the relationship with nominal assets and liabilities – Where the father removed funds from the mortgage offset account to pay for his legal fees – Where the father made a greater initial contribution to the purchase of the matrimonial property –– Where a property adjustment is made in favour of the father – Where the father is to retain possession of the matrimonial home – addbacks - Orders for a property division in favour of the father
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where respondent sought a lump sum child support payment – Where effect of the order sought was the compensate the respondent for her previous non-compliance with orders made by consent – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father has convictions for using a carriage service to access and download child exploitation material – Where the father concedes any time spent with the child should be supervised, however, does not concede that he poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the material accessed by the father was described by the sentencing judge in 2016 as “[…]” – Where the father was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment for further offences in 2021 – Where the father continues to minimise his offending behaviour – Where the father also has a history of alcohol and prescription drug abuse – Finding that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where an order for long-term supervision is not in the child’s best interests – ICL to provide reasons for judgment to the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services to ensure welfare of relative children not directly related to these proceedings.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where previous orders were made dismissing the Applicant’s Initiating Application – Where previous orders were made for the parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings – Where the Applicant’s Initiating Application was reinstated - Where the Applicant’s Initiating Application was dismissed by consent at final hearing – Where costs are to be assessed from a specific date – Orders for the Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs incurred from a specific date.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks equal time and the mother seeks alternate weekends and half of school holidays – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility and the father seeks equal shared responsibility – Where there are allegations of family violence by both parties, including coercive control and litigation abuse – Finding that both parties were coercively controlling to some degree – Where equal time and equal shared parental responsibility are found to be unworkable – The mother is given sole parental responsibility for education and health only – The child is to spend time with the father each alternate weekend and half of school holidays – Child to be put on the Airport Watchlist – Vexatious proceedings order made.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interest – Interest payable on late payments – Application of s 117B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Calculation of Interest – No matters of principle.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Rice v Asplund – Where the father seeks to vary final parenting orders made by consent – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the father seeks the children live with him and a change of the children’s schooling – Where the father seeks a passport and travel order permitting the children to travel with him to New Zealand to visit paternal grandparents – Where the father has moved homes and repartnered – Where the mother seeks no change to the current parenting orders – Where the mother makes a vexatious litigant application – Where both parents have an acrimonious relationship – Where there has been no significant change in circumstances since making of the final orders – No change to the final parenting orders – The father be permitted to travel to New Zealand with the children – Passport order made – The father to retain possession of the children’s passport – The children to attend school unless medical certificate provided – All extant applications dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the respondent husband seeks leave to rely on an affidavit regarding assessment of liabilities of his business – where the affidavit was filed less than two days before the commencement of the final hearing – where the deponent is not the individual who undertook the calculations of the alleged liabilities – where the wife would not be afforded procedural fairness if the affidavit were admitted into evidence – leave refused
FAMILY LAW – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where child’s father recently passed away – Where child not seen mother since December 2019, but mother has commenced writing to the child – Where child has lived with the paternal grandparents and father, to his death, since 2013 - Where interim consent orders previously made for major long-term decision making in favour of the paternal grandparents –Where mother eventually filed material seeking supervised time with the child, graduating to the child residing with her.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where paternal grandparents sought summary orders dismissing the mother’s Response, inter alia, pursuant to r 10.09(1)(d) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where mother sought a Family Report so the child’s views could be discerned – Orders made for a Family Report.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Where the applicant mother, second respondent paternal grandmother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer have engaged in mediation and have proposed terms of settlement – Where the first respondent father has disengaged from the proceedings and has not spent time with the child since August 2022 – Where the father has engaged in dysregulated conduct that has exposed the child to family violence – Where it is in the best interest of the child to live with the mother and spend time with the paternal grandmother – Orders made in accordance with the proposal of the applicant mother, second respondent grandmother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant seeks a stay of orders pending the appeal – Delay between Notice of Appeal and application for stay – Futility in staying some orders – Short time until hearing of appeal – Lack of evidence as to necessity of stay – Application dismissed – Costs reserved to appeal hearing.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application brought against the husband by the second and third respondents – Where the substantive proceedings were ordered to proceed by way of pleadings – Where the husband failed to file Points of Claim despite having over a year to do so – Where several Court appearances could have been avoided with some co-operation from the Husband – Where the second and third respondent incurred substantial legal fees – Where the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed and they were removed as parties – Where the appropriate quantum in the circumstances is $100,000 with payment to be stayed until 60 days after the finalisation of proceedings
FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where final hearing listed on 6 November 2023 – Where husband seeks to sell property registered in his sole name – Where auction is to take place in late 2023 with a reserve price of $18 million – Where wife seeks orders permitting the sale subject to a suite of orders regarding the process of sale and the disbursement of the sale proceeds – Where wife contends there has been inadequate disclosure in the proceedings and in particular with regard to the sale of the property – Alleged inadequate disclosure founds wife’s concern that the property will be sold undervalue – Where wife’s proposed orders are likely to cause further unnecessary disputation between parties – Where it is in the best interests of the parties for the property to be sold and at the highest achievable price – Where settlement is unlikely to occur prior to the commencement of the final hearing – Court not satisfied injunctive orders are appropriate – Orders made requiring husband to provide wife reasonable disclosure with respect of sale – Application otherwise dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the second respondent was previously appointed trustee in relation to the sale of the parties’ investment properties – alleged non-disclosure by trustee in relation to obligations – where houses have been sold significantly under value – application by applicant to appoint a new trustee – second respondent’s appointment as trustee discharged – new trustee appointed – applicant must make an undertaking as to costs regarding appointment of new trustee.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife has made multiple requests of the husband seeking disclosure of documents and information including as to real property in which the husband asserts a beneficial interest currently subject to Supreme Court litigation – Where the husband contends that he has properly abided by his disclosure obligations codified in ch 6 of the Rules – Where he has not in fact fulfilled those obligations – Orders made for his obligations to be fulfilled – Orders as costs made in favour of the wife.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by husband for costs against the wife and her solicitor following dismissal of the wife’s Application-Contempt – Where the husband contended the wife’s solicitor’s conduct was unreasonable and should be held personally liable for his costs – Where the wife’s solicitor’s conduct was not so unreasonable as to engage her liability for costs – Where the wife’s Application-Contempt was wholly unsuccessful – Order made for the wife to pay the husband’s costs on a party/party basis in a fixed sum.
FAMILY LAW – STAY – Where the wife has filed a Notice of Appeal and argues error of fact – Where the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted – Orders stayed pending determination of the appeal – Order made for 30 per cent of the net sale proceeds of the former matrimonial home to be released to the husband by way of partial property distribution.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Long marriage – Where the parties benefited from interest free loans from family members – Where those family members intervened in these proceedings – Where the husband has had the benefit of a high income for several years – Where the wife was the primary carer of the parties’ three children.
CHILD SUPPORT – Where the mother seeks a departure order – Where the father has a significantly higher earning capacity than the mother – Where the children’s lifestyle as engineered by both parents incurs costs which are not able to be sustained by the mother’s income – Where the father concedes he will pay private school fees but opposes a non-periodic child support order.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the parties provided a minute for a final parenting order resolving all issues in dispute on the second day of trial – Where an Order is made in terms of the minute provided.
FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Where applicant alleges that two children were wrongfully retained by the father in Australia and seeks their return to New Zealand – Where the father resists the making of a return order on the basis that the children will be exposed to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm – Where the Central Authority submits that the evidence does not attract a qualitative description of “grave”, given the active involvement of New Zealand Police and Oranga Tamariki and the mother’s history of engaging in protective behaviours toward the children – Where return order made on condition that the Central Authority provide a copy of the order and these reasons to Oranga Tamariki and to police in New Zealand.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – agreed balance sheet and the assets each party are to retain – hearing conducted on the papers and by submissions – husband seeks a 4 per cent adjustment for an initial superior contribution to the parties’ current assets and in respect of relevant 75(2) factors being a payment to him of $375,000 in an asset pool of 7.4 million – orders made as sought by the husband.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – MAGELLAN – Parental responsibility – Where previous parenting orders were made by consent – Where parental responsibility is in dispute – Where each of the parents seek the child live with them – Where the child made disclosures her half-brother was sexually inappropriate – Where the mother believes the child’s allegations – Where the father rejects the allegations – Where the child did not see the father for two years – Where the sexual allegations are not substantiated by SOCIT – Where parties engaged in family therapy – Where there is conflict between the parents – Where both parents lacked insight at times – Where conflict impacted upon child’s relationship with father – Where each of the parents seeks an order the child lives with them – Orders made for child to remain living with the mother and spend time with the father – Orders made for child to attend therapeutic counsellor.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders – Relocation – Where the mother sought to return to the United Kingdom pending the final hearing – Where final hearing dates have been allocated in March next year – Where the father opposed the interim relocation on the basis that there was a risk that the mother would not return with the child – Where there is no evidence that the mother would not return – Where the child is very young and has previously spent three months away with the mother in the United Kingdom – Where the father contended that his relationship with the child would be impacted if the child was to spend another three months in the United Kingdom – Where the Court is satisfied that the mother has no support networks in Australia, that her health is compromised in Australia and that she would be better supported in the United Kingdom – Relocation allowed pending final hearing.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the final hearing has been adjourned part-heard since August 2022 – Where applications for further adjournment of the recommencement of the trial have been dismissed – Where an order for the appointment of a litigation guardian for the applicant mother has been made – Where this order has not been appealed – Where the mother’s litigation guardian has made an application to withdraw as litigation guardian – Where the mother is a self-represented litigant – Where the effect of r 3.13(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) is that the mother cannot continue the litigation without a litigation guardian – Where the mother is restrained from cross-examining the father due to the requirements of s 102NA – Where the proceedings have been on foot for four years and are almost co-extensive with the child’s life – Where the father is the sole carer of the child and is labouring under the financial and emotional stress of litigation – Where it is not in the child’s best interests for the trial to be adjourned – Where the mother has not taken steps to prepare for the resumption of the trial – Proceedings struck out with a right of reinstatement subject to the mother meeting certain conditions.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Relocation – Where the mother sought to relocate to Country B with the children – Where the father sought for the children to stay in Australia and for him to have the children’s primary care – Where the parties and children migrated to Australia in 2018 – Where the Court is unable to make findings of family violence as contended for by the father – Where the Court is satisfied that both parents have capacity to capably care for the children and are not a risk to the children – Where there are advantages and disadvantages to each of the proposals – Where the mother’s ability to obtain a permanent visa is unknown – Where the mother will be able to engage in financially remunerative and intellectually stimulating work in Country B – Consideration of primary and additional considerations pursuant to s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Mother permitted to relocate to Country B.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final property proceedings between the husband and wife – Where the wife’s mother was joined to the proceedings – Where there is one property which is the major asset of the pool – Where the parties agreed that the property should be sold – Where there is a lack of evidence due to the circumstances of the case – Orders for the property to be sold and net proceeds divided 60 per cent to the wife and 40 per cent to the husband.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Proceedings between the mother and the grandmother – Where the mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility and no time with the grandmother – Where the grandmother seeks sole parental responsibility and for the children to spend time with the mother – Two children – Where one child has a disability – Family violence – Best interests of the children – Supervision – Where the mother and the grandmother have a dysfunctional relationship – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend limited supervised time with the grandmother.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – With whom a child lives with – Where previous orders were made for the child to live with the father – Where the paternal grandmother returned the child to the care of the mother – Where the mother now seeks primary care of the child – Consideration of the father’s drug use and his living arrangements – Consideration of the likelihood of the mother’s drug use – Where a s 91B order was previously made – Where the Department for Child Protection declined to intervene – Consideration of the ability of either parties to properly provide for the needs of the child – Where the stability of the child remaining in the mother’s care is given weight – Orders for the child to remain living with the mother.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where proceedings remitted by the Full Court for rehearing by a judge other than the primary judge – Proceedings listed for final hearing for ten days commencing 8 April 2024 – Where wife seeks a raft of interlocutory orders – Where wife contended that the interim orders made prior to the first final hearing were re-enlivened upon the Full Court allowing the appeal and remitting the matter – Held that pursuant to r 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) interlocutory orders ceased to have continuing effect upon the pronouncement of final orders at first instance – Interlocutory orders do not automatically resume operation in the event the Full Court allows an appeal – Where wife’s application therefore treated as an application for fresh interlocutory orders – Where a number of orders were agreed by the parties while others required judicial determination.
FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – major issue in the litigation is the source of AUD $5 million claimed by the husband’s mother – money emanating from Country B – allegations that the AUD $5 million may have been illegally obtained – ruling during the running of the trial – husband’s mother complaining that no probative value is served by examining the source of funds by which AUD $5 million is transferred from Country B to Australia – held, cross-examination is perfectly permissible.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – applicant’s application for adjournment to issue a subpoena to migration authorities – application granted.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interpretation of final orders – whether ‘close of trading’ means close of trading on the ASX – where the final orders tied the share price to the close of trade – where there was no on market trading of particular shares on the day the final orders were made – s 79A application of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to vary the orders – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice as a result of suppression of evidence – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice as a result of any other circumstance – where the Court finds there has been no miscarriage – where discretion would not have been exercised had miscarriage been established.
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT- where a departure determination order was by consent for the payment of periodic and non-periodic child support- where liable parent makes application for a discharge from departure determination of child support.
CHILD SUPPORT - departure application four step approach being change of circumstances, special circumstances, just and equitable, otherwise proper – where liable parent lost their job before departure determination order was made but then ceased to receive income – where no evidence of income earning capacity to support child support liability - where liable parent’s loss of income qualifies as a change in circumstances.
CHILD SUPPORT where liable parent’s application to depart from their liability for periodic and non-periodic child support is granted with retrospective effect to 1 December 2020 save that any overpayment created by an administrative assessment of child support be forgiven by increasing the amount of child support payable in that period by the amount of the overpayment created.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where liberty is reserved to the parties to apply in relation to implementation of this order on written notice to the other.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father is spending supervised time with the children – Where there are serious allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father towards the mother and children – Whether the father should spend unsupervised time with the children pending trial – Whether the father’s supervised time should move to the community – Whether the paternal family and father’s partner should spend time with the children.
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Disputed balance sheet – Where the vast majority of the current property of the husband and wife originated from intergenerational transfers of rural properties from the husband’s father during their marriage – Where the wife contends the intergenerational transfers were intended to benefit both herself and the husband – Whether a discretionary trust established by the husband’s father prior to the parties’ relationship is property of the husband and wife – Where the wife does not contend the trust is a sham, and a finding is made that the husband’s father retains ultimate control of the trust – Consideration of whether a financial resource is capable of being valued – Where a just and equitable division of the parties’ property is found to be 77.5 per cent in favour of the husband and 22.5 per cent in favour of the wife.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs applications subsequent to two trial events – Where the parties have been engaged in litigation for more than four years and have each had mixed success in prosecuting their relief – Where the circumstances do not justify a departure from the ordinary position that parties meet their own costs of proceedings – Costs applications dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERIM HEARING – Where the mother has brought an urgent application for the suspension of the father’s time with the child – Where the father has cognitive difficulties – Where the father’s condition is deteriorating – Child’s safety – Where the father depends heavily on a carer for day to day support – Orders made for the father to spend supervised time with the child at his cost – Application adjourned.
FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where final property adjustment orders were by consent in April 2022 – Where the Applicant introduced a claim for spouse maintenance pursuant to s 90E nine months out of time – Application for leave to proceed out of time dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – INJUNCTION – Media engagement by parents – Where the parties are public-figures – Where interlocutory injunctions have restrained the parties from media engagements that are negative about the other parent – Where the father seeks that the interlocutory injunctions are made on a final basis – Where the mother opposes the father’s application – Where the injunctions sought by the father are consistent with the expert opinion and in the best interests of the children – Where the mother works in media – Where the mother asserts the injunctions sought by the father will be substantially and disproportionately onerous for her given her profession – Where the evidence does not establish the mother will not be able to able to work nor any impact on her income or earning capacity – Where in the eyes of the Court, the rights of the children prevail over the rights of the parents where those rights conflict – Where the terms of the injunctions are not ambiguous – Order for each party to bear half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – best interests – international relocation – where the applicant is the primary carer of the child – where the applicant is seeking that the child be permitted to relocate with her to Country B –– in the alternative the mother seeks to relocate with the child to Suburb C in the event relocation to Country B is refused – where the father opposes the mother’s application to relocate and seeks that the mother be restrained from relocating the child’s residence from the Region D.
PROPERTY – final property settlement – where the respondent’s initial contributions were greater than the applicant’s – where both parties made contributions during marriage – where the respondent made substantial direct contributions to the asset pool – where the respondent brought in two farming properties into the asset pool – where the applicant is the primary carer for the child of the marriage – s 75(2) adjustment in favour of applicant.