Judgments

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.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim – Father’s application to vary interim orders to commence overnight time – Where the matter is already listed for final hearing – Where it is in the best interests of the children to commence overnight time with the father – Where changeovers are a source of conflict between the parties – Orders made for a graduating time arrangement.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application in a proceeding – Where the husband did not respond to the wife’s requests to care for the parties’ youngest child – Where the wife was required to file an application in a proceeding – Where the husband did not file any responding material – Where the husband consented at Court to the wife’s request – Where the wife initially sought an order for costs of her wasted airfares – Where the wife sought further costs thrown away of the application in a proceeding – consideration of factors relevant to an award for costs – costs order made in favour of the wife fixed in the sum of $8,000.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the younger of the two children suffers from a serious neurodegenerative disorder – Where the child requires 24-hour care – Where the younger child is wheelchair bound and unable to communicate – Where the ICL and mother contend that there is an unacceptable risk for the child in the father’s care – Where the mother’s home has been fitted with necessary equipment for the child’s safety – Where the father’s home lacks these care adjustments – Where the father will not follow the medical and allied health recommendations and directions - Where the eldest child resides with the father and is estranged from the mother – Where finding of unacceptable risk for the younger child in the father’s care due to a lack of safety.

PROPERTY – Where the second respondent was the brother of the first respondent – Where the first and second respondents colluded to reduce the asset pool of the husband and wife – Where the respondents transferred property and claimed trust interests to deny the wife her interest in the parties real property – Where the Court made orders under section 106B – Where the wife received 70 % of the parties net asset pool.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for registration of a judgment of the Family Court Division of the District Court of New Zealand under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – Where the New Zealand court made orders purportedly under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether registration involves an exercise of discretion – Whether there is an inferential limitation on registration of judgments as a matter of public policy – Where the judgment is nonetheless not so irregular to require such consideration – Judgment registered.

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 – Where the husband seeks an order for stand-alone family therapy pending trial – Where the husband did not identify a source of power to make such an order – Where the orders sought by the husband divest judicial power to the therapist – Where the order for family therapy is premature in circumstances where the parties are at issue as to the children being subject to an unacceptable risk of harm should they spend time with the husband by exposure to family violence – Where such issue is determined at the conclusion of all of the evidence and consideration of relevant factors at trial – Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband dismissed in part as to orders sought for family therapy.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Hearing – Statement of claim struck out – pleading defective – no jurisdictional basis – no meaningful cause of action – applications for further litigation funding, discovery, subpoenas and expert evidence refused – directions made for filing of evidence, outlines of case and trial materials.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father does not have a relationship with the child – Where the father perpetrated family violence against the mother – Where the child is anxious and apprehensive around matters relating to the father and is fearful that her mother may be at risk – Where the mother holds a genuinely based fear that the father would remove and, or, hurt the child – Where the father did not commence these proceedings for six years following separation – Where the father has limited insight into the needs of the child, particularly the complex psychological challenges that the child may encounter in the possible introduction of her father into her life – Orders made for the father to have no time or communication with the child.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – ex tempore – final hearing – where mother seeks further adjournment of part heard matter –where matter adjourned to allow for Counsel to read the transcript the mother says she has funded and ordered this day.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – what constitutes ‘procedural fairness’ – where all matters are ‘ready to proceed’ but may not be in a state of readiness which maximises the likelihood of a litigant obtaining the outcome for which they contend.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs – Application for indemnity costs – Consideration of s 117 factors – Where the matter proceeded on an undefended basis – Where the Court is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances justifying an order for indemnity costs in the sum of $39,850.54.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Protracted high conflict litigation – Where child has special needs – Where mother has demonstrated history of acting to undermine relationship between child and father, including numerous breaches of court orders – Where mother is excessively critical of father and his parenting – Where mother seeks to cease overnight time between child and father – Where such cessation not found to be in child’s best interests – Where orders made preserving ongoing relationship between child and father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING – Where the parties conducted a three day hearing in July 2025 in respect of proceedings brought for de facto property settlement pursuant to section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the date of the final submission was 27 August 2025 – Where judgment was delivered on 15 April 2026 – Where the parties were given an opportunity to forward draft orders reflecting the Reasons for Judgment – Where the parties sent to the Court a draft consent order and joint correspondence confirming that the parties had agreed to terms of settlement by consent – Where the Court considered the draft orders and came to the conclusion that the terms of settlement as agreed between the parties were just and equitable – Final orders made by consent on 17 June 2026.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – oral application for leave to make an oral application in a proceeding for the removal of the requirement for supervision of time and for extension of time between herself and the children – final hearing part heard – mother’s application is misconceived having regard to the state of the evidence – leave refused – oral application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Urgent application for injunctive orders to preserve the status quo pending the listing of the matter for determination of an interlocutory dispute – No matters as to principle – Orders made within the parameters constructed by the parties balancing convenience to ensure that their respective interlocutory relief is not frustrated.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application regarding compliance with previous search orders and freezing orders – Search orders and freezing orders arising from non-disclosure and repeated non-compliance with orders – Whether respondent should be heard despite non-compliance with orders – Court held that respondent could be heard – Court rejected argument that the irregularities with execution of search order justified the discharge of the search orders – Court rejected respondent’s challenge to the independence of the computer cryptocurrency expert to inspect material obtained through search orders – Orders made allowing the respondent to appoint a solicitor to join the independent solicitor and the computer cryptocurrency expert in inspecting the material to identify privileged material – Court rejected the respondent’s proposal that subpoenas provide a sufficient alternative to the search orders.

PROPERTY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder application – Applicant argued that self-managed superannuation fund (“SMSF”) was controlled by the respondent and potentially held marital property – Husband’s brother and mother are directors of the corporate trustee of the SMSF – Proposed respondents joined as parties – Court found that the applicant’s concerns that the joined parties and the respondent have intermingled finances were of substance – Court held any order affecting the SMSF would necessarily affect the proposed respondents – Joinder of the proposed respondents necessary to ensure the effective operation of disclosure obligations.

PROPERTY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Second respondent’s compliance with orders – Second respondent argued that he was not aware of the search and freezing orders – Court found it was implausible that he remained unaware of the proceedings – Court found that the second respondent had reasonable time to comply with the orders and seek legal advice in respect of these proceedings generally.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife does not produce evidence to enable the Court to find that she is unable to support herself – Where the wife does not produce evidence that the husband has capacity to meet the orders sought by the wife – Application for interim periodic spousal maintenance dismissed.

PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay a sum of $450,000 by way of interim or partial property distribution – Where the pool of assets is not clear – Application dismissed.

CHILD SUPPORT – Section 116 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 – Wife’s application for the payment of child support in an unspecified amount – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks that final parenting orders made in 2024 be reconsidered – Consideration of section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court finds that there has not been a change in circumstances – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child was born from assisted reproductive treatment – Where the respondent was registered as the child’s mother on his birth certificate and the applicant was not – Where the applicant seeks a declaration that she is a parent of the child – Where that application is not challenged by the respondent – Where the child was cared for primarily by the applicant during the relationship – Where the respondent unilaterally suspended time between the child and the applicant after separation for a period of eight months – Where the respondent and the child were homeless for a period of time after separation – Where the child had very poor school attendance whilst he was living solely with the respondent – Where the applicant asserts the respondent poses a risk to the child because of her living conditions – Where the child has ADHD, Autism (Level 2) and is identified as being highly vulnerable – Where the applicant takes issue with the school attended by the child – Where the report writer recommends that the child continue to attend his school – Where finding that the respondent has made marked improvements since proceedings were commenced – Where finding that the respondent does not pose a risk to the child – Where finding that the respondent is the child’s primary attachment figure and the child should remain living with her – Where finding that the parties should have joint responsibility for decision-making about major long-term issues, the child should live with the respondent and spend time with the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory Application – Joinder application – Where the husband contends his daughter and son-in-law should be joined to the proceedings – Where the husband contends property held by the proposed respondents is held on trust for the husband – Where the husband’s claims are not strong but are reasonably arguable – The parties’ daughter and son-in-law added as the second and third respondents respectively – The husband directed to file Points of Claim.

PROPERTY – Security for Costs application – Where the second and third respondents applied for security for costs – The husband’s property is largely overseas – The Court considered the sum of $50,000 of security for costs proportionate to the second and third respondents’ interest in protection and the husband’s interest in pursuing his claim – The amount of security for costs appropriate for the interlocutory stage of the proceedings – The Court indicated that the second and third respondents are not prevented from applying for further security for costs in the future.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parents reach agreement in relation to all issues with respect to the child save for the child’s future engagement with a psychologist – No order made compelling the child’s continuing engagement with a psychologist.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim parenting arrangements – Where there are two children to the marriage – Where the father seeks unsupervised time with one of the children and for family therapy to commence with the other – Orders made for the continuation of supervised time and for the father to undergo psychological treatment and get a treatment plan.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – EVIDENCE – Ex tempore reasons – First day of trial under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Oral application by applicant objecting to two affidavits relied on by the father – Affidavits held inadmissible.

FAMILY LAW – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – Where the parties own real property in Australia – Where the husband believes the wife has undisclosed property in the United States of America – Where the wife commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) seeking orders for division of property – Where the husband filed a response seeking relief – Where the husband then commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of California to run parallel to these proceedings – Where the wife seeks an anti-suit injunction– Where the husband does not contend that Australia is a “clearly inappropriate forum” – Where no party called any expert evidence – Discussion of the principles applicable to anti-suit injunctions – Where complete relief is available in the local proceedings – Where application is granted.

COSTS – Where the wife sought costs against the husband on an indemnity basis or alternatively costs in accordance with scale – Consideration of factors under s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is not satisfied there are exceptional circumstances warranting indemnity costs – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Whether consent vitiated – Whether there is mistake as to identity – Whether there is fraud as to identity – Where the respondent has adopted another person’s legal identity – Marriage declared void.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and that the children live with her and spend four nights a fortnight with the father, and the father sought joint decision-making responsibility with the children spending six nights a fortnight with him – Where the father has a long history of drug abuse – Where a central issue was the nature, extent and duration of the father’s drug use – Where the Single Expert opined that the risk of relapse was significant – Where the Court found that the father’s history of drug use and risk of relapse posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – Where both parties sought orders for ongoing drug testing but differed as to scope and duration – Where the mother alleged family violence – Where the Court was satisfied that the father engaged in coercive and manipulative behaviour constituting family violence and that there was a risk of ongoing exposure to the mother and children – Where the Court made orders broadly consistent with the Single Expert’s recommendations, granting the mother sole decision-making responsibility, providing for the children to spend four nights a fortnight with the father and imposing a drug testing regime in accordance with those recommendations.

PROPERTY – Where the mother sought 65 per cent of the net asset pool and the father sought 47 per cent – Where the mother contended that the family violence she suffered and the impact of the father’s drug use affected her ability to make contributions, and the Court was satisfied that this was established – Where contributions were assessed at 53 per cent in favour of the mother – Where both parties contended that an adjustment under s 79(5) should be made in favour of the mother but differed as to percentage – Where the mother will have majority care of the children – Where there is a significant disparity of income – Where the Court was satisfied that the father’s expenditure on illegal drugs constituted material waste –  Where the father incurred a significant tax liability during the relationship which the Court was satisfied he had the capacity to contribute towards but chose not to do so – Where an adjustment in favour of the mother was appropriate – Where a just and equitable outcome was 60 per cent to the mother and 40 per cent to the father.

COMPANION ANIMAL – Where both parties sought orders to retain the family’s dog – Where the Court was satisfied that the family’s dog is a companion animal under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court undertook a holistic, non hierarchical consideration of the relevant s 79(7) factors – Where the companion animal was registered in the mother’s name – Where the Court was satisfied that the mother was responsible for the care and maintenance of the companion animal until separation –  Where placing the companion animal with the mother would result in the children spending more time with the animal –  Orders made for the mother to have ownership of the companion animal.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where this is the second set of parenting proceedings in relation to the subject children – Where the children have special needs – Where the parents have encountered difficulties with medical decision-making in circumstances where orders have provided for joint parental responsibility – Where the Mother has withheld either or both of the children from spending time with the Father at times – Where interim orders providing for the children to live with the Mother and spend time with the Father have been complied with for approximately 15 months – Where each parent sought “mirror” orders that the children live with them and spend time with the other parent – Where the parent with whom the children live is to hold sole parental responsibility for decision-making with respect to major long-term issues – Where orders made for children to continue living with the Mother and spend time with the Father in accordance with the existing interim orders – Where orders made for the Mother to have sole responsibility for making decisions with respect to major long-term issues – Where orders made for the parents to contribute equally to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer notwithstanding the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s personal absence from Court.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – verbal application by the applicant for an adjournment of the trial in respect of which the applicant seeks orders to set aside the Binding Financial Agreement entered into between the parties – criminal proceeding presently pending before the District Court in which the applicant is accused of violence towards the respondent – held, criminal proceeding not relevant to this proceeding, adjournment refused.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING LIST – contests over an array of subpoenae – each basis of the claim for documents and the grounds of objection considered., SUBPOENAE – detailed analysis of apparent relevance test – extensive review of authorities.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to adduce evidence by way of a report of an expert other than a ch 7 single expert – Consideration of rr 7.02, 7.08, 7.10 and 7.16 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) – Where the wife’s application for leave to adduce evidence other than from a ch 7 single expert is significantly impeded in circumstances where a report is yet to be produced by the additional expert – Where the ch 7 single expert was not instructed to undertake the forensic investigations proposed to be undertaken by the additional expert – Where both experts would ultimately opine as to the value of the husband’s corporate and trust interests – Where the ch 7 single expert has clearly identified anomalies and insufficiencies in the material produced by the husband – Where the wife fails to establish the factors identified in r 7.08(2)(b) and (c) – Where alternate avenues exist pursuant to the Rules including in ch 6 and r 7.16 to progress the intent of ch 7 to ensure a sense of proportionality to the issues in dispute, minimising costs to litigants and creating unnecessary use of court resources – Where it is not established that the interests of justice are compromised if leave to adduce evidence by way of a report of an expert other than a ch 7 single expert is refused – Where orders are made to ensure that the forensic investigations of the wife are facilitated and any conclusions from those investigations can be put to the ch 7 single expert – Where the investigations sought to be progressed by the wife may be circular and self-defeating – Application refused – Further orders made to facilitate the wife’s objectives.

FAMILY LAW – Ex-tempore Reasons – Nullity of Marriage – Dismissal of Application – Where the husband sought a decree of nullity of marriage on the grounds of duress – Where the husband filed a Notice of Discontinuance during the course of the proceedings – Where the wife seeks to press her application that the husband’s Application for Final Orders be dismissed – Where the husband did not adduce evidence which supported the allegations of duress – Where the wife denied the husband’s allegations – Where the husband had opportunity to seek representation under s 102NA and did not elect to do so – Where the wife’s evidence was unchallenged in circumstances where the husband was self-represented – Orders made as sought by the wife – Dismissal of the husband’s Application for Final Orders.

COSTS – Ex-tempore reasons – Where the wife seeks costs against the husband – Where the matter was adjourned part-heard as a result of the husband’s failure to return to Court after the matter was temporarily stood down – Where the husband did not adduce satisfactory evidence in support of his failure to return to Court on the initial hearing date – Where the husband’s departure and resulting adjournment of proceedings caused an additional day of counsel’s fees to be incurred – Where the husband’s application was wholly unsuccessful – Where the husband submits that he is impecunious – Costs ordered in a fixed sum in favour of the wife – Payment stayed for 30 days.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parties agree the child should live with the mother – Whether the child should spend time with the father – Where the father has perpetrated severe family violence upon the mother – Where the father has exposed the child to family violence – Where the father shows little to no insight into the impact of his behaviour – Child’s views – Where the child does not wish to have a relationship with the father – Where the child demonstrates resistance to supervised time – Where the father asserts maternal influence – Where the mother has encouraged the child to spend time with the father – Where the benefit of such supervised time is unclear – Where the benefits of maintaining a relationship with the child are outweighed by the risks associated with the father – Where the mother is at liberty to arrange other contact between the child and father if in accordance with the child’s views – Where the mother is to hold sole parental responsibility – No time with father – Interstate relocation.

FAMILY VIOLENCE – Extensive history of family violence – Where the father’s violent actions against the mother resulted in criminal convictions – Where the father exposed the child to family violence – Where a s 68B injunction was sought to protect the mother and child – Where the application for a s 68B injunction was barred by s 114AB – ICL application for a s 68B injunction.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where father seeks that the Independent Children’s Lawyer be restrained from meeting with the child – where it is not inappropriate that the Independent Children’s Lawyer meet with the child.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where father continually interrupts the Court – where father has been ‘muted’ – where the Court caution that it is not only the evidence of a party but also his or her demeanour in Court that may be taken into account.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – confusion over whether or not father seeks recusal of trial judge.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – matter set down for further case management hearing prior to final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application to vary orders pursuant to s 79A – History of husband’s noncompliance – Assertion of husband that he lacked capacity to attend original proceedings – Application of proposed intervenor (husband’s sister) – Failure to put proposed intervenor on notice – Assertion of husband that disputed funds do not belong to him – Monies held on trust by the husband for his sister – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children have deteriorated rapidly post-separation – Where the children have become estranged from the mother – Where multiple recovery orders have been executed – Where the children now live with the father and have not spent time with the mother – Mental health and behavioural issues of the children – Expert evidence – Where the parties are fixated on blaming each other – Where the mother proposes extreme active intervention – Where the father proposes the children continue to live with him – Where the priority is protecting and improving the children’s mental health – Orders for the children to live with the father and see the mother in accordance with their wishes.

PROPERTY – Balance sheet items – Consideration of items previously considered “add backs” – Where the bulk of the parties’ wealth comes from gifts and bequests from the husband’s parents – Where contributions are assessed as 33% to the wife and 67% to the husband – Where each party will retain significant real property – No further adjustment warranted – Property divided accordingly.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – applications for costs consequent upon the determination of disputed issues in respect of subpoenae, disclosure and production of an unredacted version of a funding agreement – wife substantially successful in resisting the objections to inspection and production of documents – second respondent ordered to comply with disclosure obligations – second respondent unsuccessful in obtaining an unredacted version of the wife’s funding agreement – costs sought by the wife in a fixed sum to be paid by the second respondent or in the alternate in certain percentages by the four parties to the disputed matters at the hearing – wife’s litigation funder seeking costs in a fixed sum against the second respondent – DK Lawyers seeking costs in a fixed sum against the wife – all costs applications opposed – costs reserved to trial.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by the father to reconsider final parenting orders pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the final orders effected a significant change to the child’s long-term living arrangements, placing the child in the father’s care and conferring sole decision-making responsibility upon him – Where the orders included a 10‑week moratorium on the mother’s time with and communication with, the child, followed by professionally supervised time each fortnight – Where the father seeks to extend the moratorium for a further 12 months in circumstances where the mother has continued to contact the child in breach of the orders – Where the mother and other respondents did not participate in the proceedings – Where the Court is satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the final parenting orders – Where the child’s psychologist opines that delaying the reintroduction of the child’s time with the mother is necessary to protect the child’s developmental progress and psychological wellbeing – Where the Court finds that a resumption of the child’s time with the mother now would expose the child to emotional harm and undermine arrangements promoting the child’s safety – Moratorium extended until the commencement of Term 1 2027 – Where the father seeks costs in a fixed sum – Where the Court is satisfied that the father’s application was made as a result of the mother’s non‑compliance with the orders – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – Application to set aside final orders made by consent pursuant to s 79A(1A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where parties reconciled for 28 years subsequent to the making of the consent orders – Discrete determination of the threshold issue of implied consent – Held parties had impliedly consented to set aside the orders – Substantive property application to be determined on a date to be fixed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the matter proceeded undefended – Where the Court finds the father perpetrated family violence against the mother and the child – Where the father has previously had supervised time suspended by contact centres due to his conduct – Where supervision is not appropriate – Where the father has been non-compliant with Orders – Where it is not appropriate to make a provision for letters or gifts – Orders for no time and no communication between the father and the child – Orders made for the personal protection of the mother and child.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where an order is made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues – Where the mother seeks final orders that the child spend no face-to-face time with the father – Where the father has been convicted of grooming offences against male children – Where the father is on the child sex offender register until 2038 – Where the father is assessed as a low risk of sexual harm to the child and a moderate risk to other children – Where the impacts of the father’s offending, and the consequential breakdown in relationships, have had a profound effect on the mother, the child, and the child’s half-siblings – Where the father can send a letter or card and a gift to the child four times each year – Where the father is restrained from otherwise contacting or approaching the child and the child’s half-siblings.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – Where husband seeks valuation and accounting of proceeds of sale of jewellery – Where the wife seeks orders for the appointment of a trustee for the sale of several parcels of real property – Where the husband seeks an interim property distribution for litigation funding – Where the wife seeks an interim property distribution as a partial property settlement and litigation funding – Where further issues of disclosure have been agitated by the husband and wife – Where orders were made providing for disclosure of the sale of real property – Where an order was made for the valuation of real property – Appointment of a trustee for the sale of real property is not an appropriate interlocutory order in light of an irreversible effect on the existing range of assets and liabilities – Where the husband seeks transfer to him of wife’s contract of purchase of property in Suburb G – Where an intervening party seeks payment of selling agent’s commission from controlled monies account after judgment in the District Court of New South Wales –Where a plethora of interlocutory applications are made – Where the parties have shown an indifference to the overarching purpose in s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Order restraining further interlocutory applications without leave appropriate – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – Children – Ex-tempore reasons – Interim parenting orders – Best interests – Leave to proceed undefended – Where the final hearing of parenting applications was adjourned twice due to issues with counsel – Where DFFH became involved with the family in the adjourned period – Where a 12-month family preservation order was made in the Children’s Court – Where the family preservation order expired – Where the mother seeks interim orders preserving the current parenting arrangements – Where the mother seeks leave to proceed on an undefended basis – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the mother’s application – Where the father did not participate in the proceedings – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where there are criminal proceedings on foot against the father – Leave to proceed undefended granted – s 67ZBE order – Orders that the child live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father – Father to undergo drug and alcohol testing – Trial directions.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father contends that the child made disclosures to him and his mother of sexual abuse in the mother’s home – Where the father pursued the allegations by filming the child and asking her leading questions – Where the father failed to call his mother to give evidence – Where the child’s disclosures are unsubstantiated and the Department of Communities and Justice and the police closed their investigations – For an extended period, including after the investigations had closed, the father held the belief that the supposed disclosures made by the child revealed actual abuse in the mother’s home – Finding made that the father did not engage in any assessment of the likelihood or otherwise of the alleged reports being properly based – Finding made that the father’s motivations were not child-focussed or protective – Finding made that the father showed no insight or compassion into the consequences of his actions – Orders made for the child to spend supervised time with the father each month, until she turns 10 years of age.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where each parent has a deep mistrust of the other parent – Where the parties have an inability to communicate effectively - Finding that the father engaged in family violence - Where the children have resisted transitioning to the father’s care on occasion – Where the father’s insistence that parenting orders made in 2024 continue in the same form or a slightly varied form implies his prioritisation of his desire over the children’s needs – Best interests of the children – Where the eldest child has an autism spectrum disorder - Where the two eldest children have an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – Where the eldest child requires significant support to meet his needs – Where the children enjoy spending time with each parent - Where the Single Expert expressed concern about the children’s welfare if the Court made an order for the children to spend time with the father for periods longer than three nights per fortnight during the school term – Children live with mother.

PROPERTY – Premature disposal of assets – Non-compliance with Orders for valuation of assets – Non-compliance with Orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home – Exclusion of a debt owing by the husband to the Commissioner of Taxation - Effect of parenting arrangements on the wife’s current and future circumstances – Disputed loans – Where the husband did not rely on an affidavit in the name of a purported creditor.

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION – Apprehended bias - Where an application for disqualification is made at the commencement of closing submissions following a final hearing, which proceeded across six days – Where the father asserts that comments from the bench on the fourth day of trial might cause a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Court will decide the competing applications other than on its legal and factual merit – Where the father asserts that the Court failed to give him an opportunity to relieve his distress in contrast to an opportunity afforded to the mother – All grounds fail – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDING LIST – reasons explaining detailed and complex orders following substantial reasons for judgment [Jess & Jess (No 20) [2026] FedCFamC1F 72]

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Mutual allegations of family violence – Mutual allegations of poor mental health – Unilateral relocation – Child with special needs – Unacceptable risk not established – Reintroduction of relationship between father and child.

PROPERTY – Short de facto relationship – Mortgage in arrears and real property in possession of mortgagee as a result of conduct of both parties – Care of young child with special needs – Disparity in earning capacity.

SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Dispute as to form and duration of spousal maintenance to be paid to de facto wife – Inability to provide for own self-support conceded – Dispute as to capacity to provide support.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Contributions – Dissipation of pre-distributed funds – Adjustment made – Property acquired before cohabitation marriage – Total Permanent Disability Payment lump sums and periodic payments – Just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the mother sought orders for sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, for the children to live with her and only spend time with the father subject to their wishes – Where the father sought orders for sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues for the two younger children and for them to live with him – Where the father acknowledged another child was old enough to make her own decisions and on that basis did not seek orders relating to time or communication with her – Where there is insufficient evidence to make findings of coercive control, physical or sexual abuse – Where the children have been exposed to significant parental conflict – Where the mother shows no insight into her behaviour and its effect on the children – Where harm by the mother is identified – Where it is found the younger children are at less risk in the father’s care – Where an order is made to separate siblings – Where there is a change of residence.

PROPERTY – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interest – Where throughout the relationship the parties lived well beyond their means – Where the former family home is subject to a writ for the levy of property securing a business judgment debt – Where funds are owed for private school fees – Contribution-based entitlement assessed as 50/50 with a 5 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife taking into account s 75(2) factors.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where a party will be in net debt following property adjustment – whether the result remains just and equitable – Treatment of debts incurred post-separation – Consideration of liabilities in relation to current and future circumstances – Treatment of contingent liabilities – Where significant liabilities were incurred whilst in the receipt of significant income – Treatment of tax liabilities incurred for joint benefit – Shared liabilities – Whether each party should be responsible for debts incurred– Where there has been a failure to meet income tax obligations post separation – Where there are substantial legal debts – Wastage – Where the parties acquired a large property portfolio shortly prior to separation – Determining how the properties should be managed post-separation – Where both parties assert the other has engaged in significant waste – Where there has been a significant dissipation of assets post-separation – Where the parties’ debts have increased substantially post-separation.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT– Potential eligibility for a lump sum disability payment – Where both parties are in receipt of income insurance but assert they can return to work – Superannuation – Where parties have significant differences in their superannuation amounts and are approaching retirement.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Family violence – Where family violence has impacted on property contributions – Where contributions are rendered significantly more arduous by family violence.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband, the wife and the second respondent seek that final consent orders be made compromising the s 79 litigation – Where the husband became bankrupt during the litigation – Where the husband’s trustee in bankruptcy has declined to intervene in the litigation over the past two and a half years – Where the trustee in bankruptcy does not propose to intervene in the proceeding but opposes the proposed consent orders – Where the contentions of the trustee in bankruptcy were less than clear, including as to any prejudice in the making of the orders – Consent Orders made over the objection of the Trustee.