Judgments

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – International Relocation – where the wife seeks to relocate the children to her country of birth – where the husband seeks orders for the children to remain living with him in Australia – Where the wife administered illicit substances to one of the children – Whether the wife poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where relocation to Country B is likely to be detrimental to the children’s relationship with the husband – Children not permitted to relocate – Children to live with the husband and spend time with the wife in Australia with time to be initially supervised and thereafter progressing to unsupervised time – Children placed on the watchlist until each of them attains 16 years – Various injunctions made to ensure the children’s safety.

Property – Modest asset pool where parties agree equal contributions – No adjustment for future needs to either party – Property and superannuation pool divided equally between the parties – Where wife sought orders for lump sum spousal maintenance, and in the alternative period spousal maintenance – Consideration of threshold factors and husband’s capacity to pay – No order for spousal maintenance.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks orders compelling the father to sign a document indicating he does not object to the surrender of the child’s Indian passport and citizenship to enable the child to obtain an Overseas Citizenship of India status – Where final parenting orders were made by consent for the child to live with the mother in Australia or India – Where the mother may be unable to remain in Australia – Where the child cannot reside in India without an Overseas Citizenship of India status – Jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Amendment to the language of the orders sought – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Where the wife lodged a caveat over the second respondent’s property – Where the second respondent’s property was sold and scheduled to settle and those funds were then to be used to purchase another property – Where the second respondent sought the removal of the caveat – Where the wife sought the second respondent pay any associated costs with the sale and purchase of the new property, receive $1 million for her personal use and the rest of the proceeds of sale be held in her solicitors’ trust account and invested – Where the Court is not persuaded that the balance of convenience favours the granting of injunctions in the terms sought by the wife – Where an order is made for the wife’s caveat to be removed from the title of the second respondent’s property – Where the second respondent is to inform the husband and wife 21 days prior to any dealing with her new property.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where a Notice of Objection is filed by the Mother – where the Notice of Objection is in relation to a subpoena issued by the Independent Children’s Lawyer to a Contact Centre – where the Mother did not attend Court – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer is directed to inspect the subpoenaed material – where the parties are thereafter given leave to view the subpoena material – where the Notice of Objection is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Where it is asserted that the proposed intervener pursued a hopeless application and was wholly unsuccessful – Where the proposed intervener unreasonably rejected an offer – Where the proposed intervener knew or ought to have known that an order for indemnity costs loomed large on the horizon if he was unsuccessful and notwithstanding that he adopted a fixed and blinkered approach in the prosecution of his application – Where the proposed intervener’s submissions in opposing indemnity costs were hollow – Where exceptional circumstances justifying indemnity costs are established – Where there is sufficient evidence to fix costs – Where the fixing of costs avoids the delay, expense and aggravation of assessment.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the Court finds that the children are not at a risk of harm in either parent’s household – Where the evidence does not support a finding that the children ought to be removed from the mother’s primary care.

PARENTING – Decision-making – Where there is a lack of parental cooperation – Where these is a risk of unilateral decision making by the mother – Where joint decision-making is protective of the children’s best interests – Joint decision-making appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal Professional Privilege – Application by the husband seeking to restrain wife from further instructing her legal representatives – Where these legal representatives have had access to documents over which the husband claims legal professional privilege – Where these documents relate to previous family law proceedings of the husband and his former spouse – Where the husband's forensic decisions make it impossible to understand the prejudice he alleges that he suffers – Not established that the wife has gained a forensic advantage over the husband due to the provision of these documents to her lawyers – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Parental responsibility – which school the child shall attend in 2026.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where a third-party seeks indemnity, party/party or scale costs payable by the mother on a s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) protected confidence objection to a subpoena issued at her request – Where the mother opposes the cost orders of the third-party objector – Where consent orders were entered on the first day of trial regulating the production and inspection of material sought in the schedule to the subpoena – Where the third-party objector ought not be criticised for implementing professional obligations to protect a patient's confidences as recently codified in s 102BA – Where the mother's conduct pivots the discretion to justify costs – Where it is just to make an order for the mother to pay the third-party objector’s costs – Order for the mother to pay costs fixed on a party/party basis.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (CTH) CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 – Oppression proceedings –transferred from the Federal Court to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) pursuant to s 34AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 2001(Cth) and r 27.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 –Where applicants assert oppressive conduct on the part of the shareholders of the first respondent company – applicant seeks the appointment of a receiver and manager on an interlocutory basis – concurrent and inter related family law proceedings in this court – application dismissed and the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Long marriage – Where the husband’s interest in a family trust is considered a resource and not property for the purposes of s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband received significant funds from external family sources during the marriage – Where the parties’ 14-year-old child lives primarily with the wife – Where the wife’s contributions have been made more arduous as a consequence of the husband’s conduct – Where contributions favour the husband as to 65 per cent – Where a 10 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife is just and equitable on account of her future needs – Sale of the former family home – Parties to retain their own superannuation.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Urgent injunction for the preservation of property – Where the husband seeking the injunction does not have a legal interest in the subject real property – Where the husband’s interest is contingent on a successful challenge to a s 90C agreement and then in turn in the proposed s 79 litigation – Where the evidence does not establish that the husband has an arguable case with sufficient likelihood of success to justify the injunctive orders sought – Where the balance of convenience favours the wife – Where the husband has delayed for 18 months delay in bringing his application for orders restraining the wife dealing with her real property –Where there is no evidence that the wife will dissipate her property to defeat any potential claim of the husband – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where Reasons for Judgment were delivered on 16 September 2025 – where a final order was made on 31 October 2025 – where the husband has filed a Notice of Appeal against the final orders - where the husband seeks a stay of the final orders pending the result of the appeal – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where s 79 orders were made on 14 February 2024 after a trial in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Where the structure of the final orders, including the specie of items of property to be retained, were a product of the agreement of the parties, including for the husband to relocate the trading enterprise of his corporation – Where ch 7 single expert evidence was adduced as to the cost of the relocation of the trading enterprise and the re-fit of the proposed new operating premises, submissions made as to factual disputes as to those subject matters, and determination made by the primary judge – Where the husband failed or neglected to comply with an order for the payment of a cash adjusting sum to the wife – Where there has been delay in implementing some of the final orders – Where the wife filed an Application – Enforcement of the s 79 orders – Where the enforcement proceeding was listed for hearing – Where the husband filed an Initiating Application seeking to vary or set aside some of the final orders pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the husband pleads a miscarriage of justice by any other circumstance, that compliance with the orders is impracticable due to unforeseen costs associated with relocating the trading enterprise, and a default in compliance with the orders under challenge such that the s 79 orders be varied or set aside – Where the wife made an application for summary dismissal of the husband’s Initiating Application pursuant to s 102QAB of the Act – Where the husband does not have reasonable prospects of success of prosecuting his relief as sought – Initiating Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application to set aside final orders made by consent pursuant to section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where wife received substantial total and permanent disability insurance payment shortly after final consent orders were made –Suppression of evidence – Impracticability – Default – Consent to vary orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – application for costs made by applicant against first respondent following unsuccessful and unmeritorious interlocutory applications in parenting proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Decision-making – Where the applicant sought joint major long-term decision-making in relation to cognitive, developmental and behavioural health only – Where the respondent sought sole major long-term decision-making – Where the Court found that the parties do not have a sufficient co-parenting relationship to navigate shared major long-term decision-making –Where the Court ordered that the respondent have sole major long-term decision-making.

PARENTING – Re-location – Where the respondent sought an order permitting her to relocate interstate with the children from time to time and in accordance with her employment – Where any re-location was opposed by the applicant and Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court made findings that the applicant’s proposal would destabilise the children – Where the Court made findings that the respondent does not promote the children’s relationship with the applicant – Where the Court declined to make a “blank cheque” order for the respondent to re-locate.

PARENTING – Spend time – Where the applicant and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought that the children spend five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the respondent sought that the children spend three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the Single Joint Expert recommended the children spend three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the status quo was the children spending five nights per fortnight with the applicant –Where the Court departed from the recommendation of the Single Joint Expert – Where the Court amended the status quo to be five consecutive nights to reduce the potential for conflict.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the father is so high that it requires a change to the children’s living arrangements – Where the Court finds that there is an unacceptable risk that the children will suffer from psychological harm in the event that the children continue to live in the primary care of the father – Where the evidence supports the making of an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parties consent to child living with the father – Decision making and the child’s time with the mother remained in dispute – Where the mother has serious current substance abuse and mental health issues likely to continue for at least two years – Where the 12 year old child has been exposed to neglect by the mother and family violence by the mother’s various post separation partners – Where the child expressed a view to only see the mother in a supervised setting – Where mother presents an unacceptable risk of unsupervised time – Where an issue in proceedings is whether a supervision order would or could be a de-facto no time order for financial reasons – Where court finds non supervision proposed restraints will not adequately ameliorate risks – Sole parental and long term decision making responsibility to father – Supervised time and weekly communication till child commences year 9 – time and communication at father’s discretion subsequently - ancillary orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Dispute in relation to property pool and value of assets – Where applicant wife is a medical professional and performed homemaker duties – Where respondent husband is a medical professional –Property to be divided 52.5 to 47.5 in favour of the wife.

PARENTING - Jurisdiction – Application for parenting orders where younger two children live in Country B with the maternal grandmother – Where younger two children are not habitually resident in Australia – No parenting orders made with respect to younger two children.

PARENTING – Limited issue – Issue of allocation of decision making authority for 16 year old son.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Undefended hearing – just and equitable – where the husband failed to engage with proceedings – where the wife’s evidence was unchallenged – where the asset pool included numerous properties located outside of Australia – where the wife sought orders for periodic spousal maintenance and a 60/40 division of the asset pool in her favour – where the wife sought to rely on a Notice to Admit – where there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of items in the balance sheet – where there were deficiencies in the Notice to Admit – where the Court was not satisfied as to the husband’s capacity to pay periodic spousal maintenance – 60/40 division of the net identified assets in the wife’s favour – dismissal of the wife’s application for periodic spousal maintenance.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children live with the mother and have not spent time with the father since 2023 – Where the mother suffers from untreated mental health issues – Where the mother is fixed in her belief that the father sexually abused one of the children – Where allegations of sexual abuse are not substantiated – Where the mother’s parenting capacity is compromised by her mental health issues – Where the mother’s mental health issues are adversely impacting the children and pose an unacceptable risk – Where the mother has not meaningfully engaged in any treatment – Orders made for the children to live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Where both parents were born in the United Kingdom – Where the children were born in Australia – Where the Mother wishes to relocate the children’s residence to the United Kingdom – Where such relocation is opposed by the Father – Where the Mother is the uncontested primary carer for the children – Where both parties make allegations of family violence against the other – Where the ability to make findings in relation to family violence was affected by contradictory and unsatisfactory evidence and cross examination – Where the Court is satisfied the Father has engaged in some physical violence and coercive and controlling behaviour – Where the Mother also used family violence but where she was vulnerable in her relationship with the Father – Where the Father’s behaviour has affected the Mother’s ability to facilitate the children’s relationship with him – Where co-parenting relationship will likely not develop whether the children live in Australia or in the United Kingdom – Where the children will be exposed to conflict and the Mother’s anxiety if they remain living in Australia – Where the Mother has very limited support networks in Australia – Where the Mother has the support of her mother in the United Kingdom – Where return to study and paid work will be difficult for the Mother in Sydney as opposed to the United Kingdom – Where the Mother will have a better psychological foundation for parenting in the United Kingdom – Where the Father will travel to United Kingdom to spend time with the children – Where it is in the children’s best interests for them to live with the Mother in the United Kingdom – Where the children’s relationship with the Father and sister will be assisted by delaying the relocation until July 2026 – Where orders made increasing the children’s time while they are in Australia to include overnight time – Where orders made permitting the Mother to travel with the children to the United Kingdom and establish the children’s residence there – Where orders made for the children to spend time with the Father in the United Kingdom and later in Australia as sought by him – Where orders made requiring the Mother to register these Orders in the United Kingdom pursuant to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996 – Where no orders made with respect to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs in circumstances where the Mother has no income and both parents will have international travel expenses – Where difficulties of final orders providing for a parent to attend a men’s behavioural change program considered – Where no order is made for the Father’s attendance at a men’s behavioural change program – Where children’s best interests is a relevant consideration pursuant to s 114UB(3)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the father last spent time with the children almost three years prior, following the making of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order by police for the protection of the mother and children – Where the eldest child presents with significant special needs requiring ongoing care – Where the children are seven and six years of age – Where the Court finds that the father engaged in conduct prior to separation which constitutes family violence – Where the mother seeks orders that the children spend no time with the father and have no communication with him, together with various restraints pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the father seeks orders for professionally supervised time with the children for four hours each alternate week for a period of twelve months – Where the single expert witness recommends that the children spend no time with the father – Where the Family Report and Child Impact Report contain deficiencies which undermine their utility – Where the Court is unable to find that supervised time between the father and the children would impair the mother’s parenting capacity so as to create an unacceptable risk to the children’s welfare – Where supervision is found to be sufficient to mitigate any identified risk – Where the mother concedes in cross examination that she was not triggered when the children previously spent time with the father – Findings that supervised time is unlikely to cause significant stress to the mother or materially impair her parenting capacity – Orders made for the father to spend professionally supervised time with the children.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks orders that the husband pay her costs of and incidental to the hearing of the husband’s s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) application on an indemnity basis – Where the husband’s s 79A application was summarily dismissed – Order for indemnity costs in a fixed sum made in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Proceeding by the wife to join the husband’s partner as a party – Application in a Proceeding by the husband to join the parties’ adult daughter as a party – Where the parties were ordered to file pleadings as to the facts and circumstances grounding the claim against each proposed party to be joined – Consideration as to the role of pleadings in establishing the conjunctive thresholds mandated by r 3.01 – Where parties should be held to their pleaded case – Where the pleadings of each of the husband and the wife make bare assertions that, absent more, would not ground an arguable case sufficient to resist the entry of summary judgment by the party sought to be joined – Where in that circumstance joinder would be futile – Where each of the husband and the wife declined to make an adjournment application coupled with seeking leave to amend their pleadings – Applications in a Proceeding dismissed – Consideration of s 71B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as to the mandatory statutory obligation of timely disclosure of documents and information including as to context.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Where an adult son of the parties sought joinder to s 79 proceedings between the executors of his late father’s estate and his mother – Where the son seeks joinder to prosecute a claim that his mother holds her interest in a real property on trust for him – Where that real property was bequeathed to the wife by way of the Will of her own mother – Where the adult son is prosecuting a claim in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking further provision out of the estate of the late husband pursuant to the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) – Where the wife contends that the facts and contentions pleaded by the son could not lead to a successful claim against the real property and hence any joinder would be futile – Where the estate of the late husband contends that the son cannot establish jurisdiction pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for his claim as pleaded for relief – Where the son contended that Pt VIIIAA and specifically s 90AE(2)(b) is a jurisdictional pathway in a matrimonial cause for a third party to the marriage to prosecute a claim against a party to the marriage in a s 79 proceeding – Where Pt VIIIAA of the Act is explicitly ancillary to the exercise of a s 79 power and not a separate source of jurisdiction – Where the son failed to establish an accrued jurisdiction to determine his non-federal claim – Where the son as a residuary beneficiary of an unadministered estate does not have a beneficial or equitable interest in the property of the estate – Where the son has a chose in action for the due administration of the estate in accordance with the Will – Where the son fails to establish his interest that will be directly affected by the s 79 proceedings or that his participation in the proceedings is necessary to determine all the issues in dispute –Where the application for joinder is a satellite skirmish in the dissatisfaction with the conduct of the executors of the deceased estate – Where the son has remedies available to him, should his assertions as to conduct have merit, in another forum – Application for joinder dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – enforcement application – where the applicant wife seeks that the first and second respondent pay her costs on an indemnity basis – where the first and second respondent were wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – where the first and second respondent have not complied with final orders and frustrated the finalisation of proceedings – order for costs on an indemnity basis against the first and second respondent.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – solicitor/client costs – where wife seeks costs of proceedings including 42 day trial – where husband’s conduct justified an order for costs – where consideration of the party’s respective financial circumstances and their conduct during the trial informed a decision by the Court to make the husband responsible for the wife’s costs of the trial – where Court not satisfied that the husband’s conduct, albeit egregious, constituted exceptional circumstances necessary to indemnity costs – where wife’s Counsel fees have not been invoiced as claimed – where costs ordered on a solicitor/client basis to be assessed.

EVIDENCE – where husband’s affidavit struck out and husband had no evidence – where husband’s submissions were largely irrelevant.
 

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property interests – Where wife made contributions from trust distributions – Where wife also received gifts from family – Where advance from family had the effect of discharging the wife's mortgage – Where wife executed a promissory note – Where wife asserts advance was a loan – Where husband disputes requirement for repayment – Held that the promissory notes support the conclusion it was a loan – Whether a global or asset-by-asset approach is appropriate in the circumstances – Where both parties have made financial and non-financial contributions (including parenting contributions) – Held that it is not just and equitable to adopt asset-by-asset approach in this case –Where wife's financial contributions were significantly greater than the husband's – Where the wife has underplayed the husband's contributions – Where wife is in a much stronger financial position than the husband – Where the wife wishes for the children to continue enrolment at an independent school – Where the husband has never been in a position to meet the fees for this school – Order made for the wife to indemnify husband for school fee debt as well as any future fees – Where the both parties have ongoing financial responsibilities towards the children – Order made for adjustment of the property pool in favour of the husband.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation for four years – Where the wife seeks enforcement of final orders made at trial pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) –Where the husband has not complied with his obligations pursuant to default orders for the sale of real property he occupies – Where the wife seeks to facilitate enforcement by way of further mechanical orders – Where history is indicative of future behaviour – Orders made appointing the wife as trustee for the sale of the property – Orders made for the husband to pay the wife’s costs of the enforcement application.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – agreement as to property pool and value of assets – Where both parties are farmers – Initial contributions favour the husband – Contributions during the marriage favour the wife – Husband to purchase property to establish new farming enterprise – Property pool to be divided 53.5 per cent to the wife and 46.5 per cent to the husband – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – the wife seeking to stay the execution of a warrant of possession over the property – parties consented to the dismissal without an adjudication on the merits.

DISCLOSURE – the wife alleges the husband has failed to disclose various documents – orders previously made for disclosure had not been complied with – held, husband must provide exhaustive disclosure within 14 days and if he is non-compliant will be required to show cause as to why his amended response should not be stayed until he provides adequate disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife failed to comply with an order of the Court – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to amend his Amended Response to Initiating Application – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – attempt to relitigate issue determined by earlier consent order – application by beneficiary of deceased estate of husband to intervene in property proceedings – application for substitution of legal personal representative of deceased husband – discovery sought against non-party – request for leave to issue subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Ex Tempore Reasons – undefended hearing - best interests – decision-making authority – live with – passport – where the father withheld consent to passport applications for the children – where there were allegations of family violence against the father – where the father disengaged from proceedings – where the matter proceeded in the absence of the father – sole decision-making authority to the mother – the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed between the parents – passports to be issued for the children without the consent of the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife seeks to join the de facto husband’s mother and other corporate and trust entities in which she contends the husband controls as additional respondents to the proceeding – Where the proposed additional respondents oppose the joinder – Where the de facto wife abandoned or withdrew her contentions of sham – Where she instead contends control – Consideration of whether to refuse an application for joinder if there is no merit – Where the de facto wife’s claim could not be said to be unsuccessful – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceeding – Order for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders proposed with consent of all parties – Proposed orders suitable to ameliorate the risk to the children associated with the father in circumstances where the mother’s parental capacity is compromised – Final orders made in line with the terms provided by the parties.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Injunctive orders – Where the de facto wife seeks injunctive orders to receive notice prior specified dealings with a unit trust and a discretionary trust of which she contends the de facto husband directs the conduct of – Where the appointor and the trustees of those trusts, being the second, fourth, and fifth respondents, oppose the injunctive orders as sought – Where those respondents contend the evidence does not establish that the de facto wife has an arguable case to justify preservation of the status quo and that, in absence of a risk of dealing with assets to frustrate a judgment, an injunction cannot be grounded by application of the “chicken soup” principle – Where the balance of convenience favours the injunctive orders broadly as sought by the wife amended to a defined scope – Notification orders made.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where the legal practitioner has failed to comply with orders for the filing of documents – Where the legal practitioner has failed to attend three Court hearings – Where the legal practitioner has breached the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules – Referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the child lives and spends time with – Where the parties are unable to agree parenting arrangements for a nine year old child – Where the child currently lives with the respondent and spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks a change of primary care – Where the respondent seeks to reduce the child’s current time with the applicant to three nights per fortnight – Where the child experiences high levels of anxiety – Consideration of best interests – Where a change in primary care is likely to cause the child extreme distress and anxiety – Where the evidence supports a reduction in time from five nights to three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Sole parental responsibility for decision-making to the respondent – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT – Where both parties filed applications seeking the other comply with final orders regarding sale of the matrimonial property – Where both parties assert the other is responsible for the non-compliance with the orders – Where both parties seek alterations to the orders that deal with the sale of such property – Where enacting the husband’s proposed alterations would result in a substantive change to the orders – Sale of the property and avoidance of future litigation in the interest of both parties – Discharge and substitution of the order regarding sale of the property.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – where subpoena objected to on the basis of protected confidence – whether party is a professional service – whether the communications are protected confidences – whether likely harm outweighs desirability of production – application objecting to subpoena dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband filed no response to the wife’s submissions – where the husband has not complied with previous court orders – where the husband’s conduct has delayed court proceedings – where the husband has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – consideration of s 117(2A) factors – costs ordered on an indemnity basis in the wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Sentencing – Respondent pleaded guilty to ten charges of contempt – Seriousness of contempt – Desirability of determining appropriate sentence for each charge – Totality of sentence should not exceed totality of offending – Imprisonment as sentence of last resort – Circumstances warrant imprisonment – Concurrency and cumulation - Part suspension of imprisonment – Good behaviour bond.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the matter is part-heard – Where the applicant sought to remove the requirement for professionally supervised time – Where the applicant failed to disclose mental health concerns – Where the respondent contended that professionally supervised time is still warranted – Where the applicant proposed the two paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the paternal aunts fail to address or acknowledge the father’s mental health conditions – Where the respondent opposed the paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the applicant sought a video communication order – Where the Court made orders for video communication between the applicant and the child – Where the Court otherwise dismissed the applicant’s interim application.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – TRIAL SEQUENCE – the applicant submits that the respondent should file his case outline first as the applicant does not understand the case advanced by the respondent – held, case outlines should be filed concurrently.

MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – EXPERT EVIDENCE – the respondent submits that the applicant should be restricted to a single expert witness per issue – held, the applicant should not be so restricted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - Short marriage – Application by the wife for an adjustment of property interests - Where the marriage lasted two months - Where no compelling reasons exist to make a property adjustment as per s79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Application refused.

PROPERTY – Disputed asset pool – Where applicant wife claims that the husband is the beneficial owner of millions of dollars’ worth of tangible and intangible property in Australia and overseas - Where wife asserts that the husband has not made a full and frank disclosure - Where the court is not satisfied of beneficial ownership - Where even if the Husband did own some or all of the assets, no adjustment would be warranted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Where applicant wife seeks a spouse maintenance claim despite leave being refused under s44(3) and appeal against refusal being dismissed. Application is dismissed.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Practice and Procedure- Where applicant wife asserts that her case requires intervention by the Attorney General - Where applicant therefore seeks adjournment of hearing - Where no evidence or specific claims are made to advance this proposition - Where adjournment application is opposed by all other parties -Adjournment application is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the mother is so high that it requires limitation ad supervision of the children’s time with the mother into the future – Where the father proposes orders in terms similar to the orders promoted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court finds that there is unacceptable risk that the children will suffer psychological harm in the mother’s care – Where the evidence supports the making of an order that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children.

PARENTING – Where the mother amended her application on the first morning of trial - Where the mother promotes unsupervised time between the children and the father – Where the Court finds that the mother will never voluntarily facilitate time between the children and their father.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding in the evening prior to the competing applications being listed for Closing Submissions – Where the application was dismissed – Where the mother filed a further Application in a Proceeding subsequent to Judgment being reserved – Where the mother seeks a variety of orders including to adduce further evidence – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the application – application refused.