Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Magellan list – Child sexual abuse – unacceptable risk – whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – spend time arrangements – no finding as to sexual abuse – where it is nevertheless determined that spending time or communicating with the father against the children’s wishes poses an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children – where no spend time or communication ordered.

PROPERTY – where parties agree as to all substantive assets and liabilities – where only disagreement is to addbacks – where father fails to establish that there should be addbacks as asserted against the mother – where parties agreed contributions should be assessed as equal – where mother has future care of the children – legal fees considered under s75(2)(o) – adjustments favour the mother.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where both parents made applications after the end of trial to re-open evidence – where both parents not represented following the end of trial – reasons reserved to final judgment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where father makes an application to correct his evidence at trial – limited prejudice to the mother – application considered.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where father sought the commission of a further expert report after trial ended – prejudice to the mother – evidence could have been made available for trial – application dismissed with costs.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to re-open – where mother sought to reopen evidence – where mother has resigned from gainful employment – where primary residential asset sold after close of evidence – mother’s application to re-open evidence allowed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where a third-party company seeks its costs in respect of subpoenas set aside by the Court – Where a third-party company seeks its costs arising from the proceedings in respect of those subpoenas – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful with respect to twenty-two subpoenas to which objection was taken by the company.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought the joinder of a third-party company – Where the application was dismissed - Wife to pay the costs of the third-party company fixed in a specific amount.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the daughter of the late de facto wife filed a Notice of Intervention by Person Entitled to Intervene – Where the de facto husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking for that Notice to be dismissed – Where the de facto wife’s daughter made an oral application for the adjournment of the hearing of the Application in a Proceeding – Where the de facto husband opposes an adjournment – Where the interests of justice are served by an adjournment – Application in a Proceeding adjourned on condition.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim Application – consent orders resolved most issues – where two outstanding applications –where father seeks additional time with – where paternal grandmother seeks additional time with – where current orders allow for time with father and paternal grandmother and also additional time with father and or paternal grandmother with agreement of Department of Communities and Justice and Independent Children’s Lawyer – risk issues – consent orders allow appropriate time with – two applications for additional time with dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children had been regularly cared for by the paternal grandparents prior to December 2023 – Where since December 2023 the children have lived with the mother – Where the mother sought a finding that the paternal grandfather has sexually abused the male child – Where the Court is satisfied that the paternal grandfather has not sexually abused the male child.

PARENTING – Where the paternal grandparents and the father assert that the mother has an obsessive-compulsive disorder or in the alternative, that the mother demonstrates traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptomatology – Where there are indicators that the mother’s parenting capacity is impaired by her mental health but not to an extent that warrants the removal of the children from the mother’s primary care.

PARENTING – Where the father’s involvement with the children since August 2021 has been limited – Where the Single Expert expressed an opinion that it is in the best interests of the children that they have access to at least one parent which will promote a sense of stability, reliability and predictability for them.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there are competing applications for sole parental responsibility and primary residence – Question of whom the children should live with and under what arrangements, including time and supervision – Where there are allegations of family violence, breaches of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders, and police and child protection involvement – Impact of parental mental health and psychiatric diagnoses on capacity to care for children – Disputed medical management of child with chronic illness – Expert evidence as to risk, stability, and parenting capacity – Suspension of time with non-resident parent due to risk concerns – Application of best interests principles under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of protective and welfare factors – Interim orders for sole parental responsibility, primary residence, and no time with non-resident parent pending further order.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband and wife executed multiple agreements between 2014 and 2020 – Whether any of the agreements are binding financial agreements – Where the first agreement did not express it was made before or during the parties’ marriage – Where the legal advice provided to the wife as to the second agreement was insufficient to meet the necessities of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the third and fourth agreements were made during the parties marriage, but do not state they were made pursuant to s 90C of the Act – Where there is no evidence the parties independently received legal advice in respect of the fifth agreement – Where the agreements do not qualify as financial agreements and are not binding financial agreements under Pt VIIIA of the Act – Where the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s application for substantive financial relief under Pt VIII of the Act – Procedural orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COURTS AND JUDGES – Disqualification – application by the father seeking disqualification of judge on the basis of apprehended bias – where the father has made a s 65DAAA application to reopen the proceedings – where the father asserts that failure to accept aspects of his evidence in the primary judgment demonstrate adverse credit findings – whether prior implied adverse credibility findings would cause a fair-minded lay observer to apprehend bias – s 65DAAA does not involve any assessment of credibility – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – RECOVERY ORDER –Where child withheld despite best interest orders – Where child has not been going to school whilst being withheld – Where other issues in the application can be considered at trial in 10 weeks’ time – Where Recovery Order made.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS – Where a harmful proceedings order was previously made directed to the husband – Where the husband made an oral application for a stay of previous orders – Where the court invited the husband to make submissions with respect to the question of leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 102QAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - Where there is no provision in s 102QAE for an oral application for leave to be made – Where the husband had not complied with the mandatory requirements for an application for leave pursuant to s 102QAE– Where the husband was not given leave to make such an application – Application for stay refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoenas – Whether subpoenas should be set aside – Objection to subpoena by a non-party – Subpoena failed to satisfy relevance – Subpoena found to be oppressive – Subpoena found to be a fishing expedition.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the Respondent has failed to engage correctly with Orders of the Court – Where the Respondent seeks an adjournment of the final hearing – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS –Duty of full and frank disclosure – Whether the duty applies to costs applications – Duty held to apply.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Where a senior judicial registrar dismissed the wife’s application to join a mortgagee bank to the proceedings – Where the bank resisted the application – Where the Supreme Court of NSW granted default judgment to the bank for exclusive possession of the encumbered real property together with a money judgment against the husband for the debt due under the terms of the mortgage – Where the wife and bank reached agreement allowing the wife until March 2026 within which to refinance the mortgage to satisfy the judgment debt – Where the bank is not a necessary party to the proceedings between the spouses – Application for review dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Ex tempore reasons – Where orders were previously made for the sale of two blocks of land – Where post the order for the sale of the property the husband registered a caveat over one of the titles to be sold – Where the caveat lodged by the husband was subsequently removed and injunctions made – Where immediately subsequent to those orders a third party registered a caveat over the same title – Where the third party is a friend of the husband – Where the husband asserts that one of the titles is owned by the SMSF – Where the third party recently became a member and trustee of the SMSF at the husband’s invitation – Where the third party asserts she has an equitable interest in the property as a result of her inclusion in the SMSF – Where the wife seeks an order restraining the third party from lodging any further documents on the titles of the blocks and compelling the third party to withdraw the caveat – Where the Court is satisfied that the husband and third party are taking steps to frustrate the orders for the sale of the blocks of land – Orders made compelling the third party to take such necessary steps to withdraw the caveat.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Whether any property still exists or is likely to still exist from which a property settlement order can be made – Where the wife seeks a property settlement order – Where the husband contends that any property either did not exist in the first place or has been lost by him as a result of unscrupulous unidentified third parties – Where the wife seeks an add back of the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the Court is unable to be satisfied that any of the sale proceeds still exist – Where the wife invites the Court to infer that an overseas transfer of substantial funds was legitimate – Where the Court describes the alleged receipt of such a payment as ‘fanciful’ – Discussion of add backs – Where the Court is not persuaded that property exists – Where the wife’s application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – DEED OF RELEASE – Recitals – whether a claim seeking a declaration about the existence of a de facto relationship and a subsequent claim for property settlement are claims that were released by a deed of release containing terms of settlement relating to a costs order made in the Supreme Court of Queensland – doubt and uncertainty relating to clauses in the Deed – reference to the recitals permitted – Leggott v Barrett (1880) 15 Ch. D. 306 applied.

COMMON LAW & EQUITY - Special principles applying to deeds of release including equitable considerations – where (at common law) the general words of the release should be restrained by the particular occasion – where (in equity) the true purpose of the deed of release is to be ascertained from the nature of the instrument and the surrounding circumstances including the state of knowledge of the respective parties concerning the existence, character and extent of the liability in question and the actual intention of the releasor – Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 112 applied. Ms Allen’s claims in this jurisdiction were not released by the deed of release - application in a proceeding filed by Mr Fox on 29 May 2025 dismissed.
 

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Court determines two interrelated costs applications – Where the Court determines that the conduct of a party warrants a costs order – Where the Court declines to make an indemnity costs order – Where a costs order pursuant to Schedule 3 of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) is not possible due to inaccurate billing – Where the Court discusses the nature, ambit and bounds of the fixed costs power – Where the Court makes an order for fixed costs totalling $150,000.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final Orders – Family violence –Where the mother contends that the father has perpetrated family violence –Where the Court is satisfied that the father’s conduct towards the mother constituted repeated and deliberate acts of family violence –Where the ICL and mother sought orders for the father’s time to be supervised – Where the father sought orders for unsupervised time – Where the Court is satisfied that the arrangements that promote the safety of the mother and child are ones that provide for the father’s time with the child to be limited and supervised.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Where the applicant and respondent mother seek leave to commence adoption proceedings of twin 8 year old children (“the children”) – Where the biological father is deceased – Where the respondent mother has been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer – Where section 65K of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is considered – Leave granted – Order made that the applicant and respondent mother are jointly responsible for all long-term decision making concerning the care, welfare and development of the children.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the child is aged 12 years – where the mother seeks that the child spend no time with the father – where the father seeks unsupervised time with the child progressing to alternate weekends – allegations of family violence – where the 12 year old child told the Independent Children’s Lawyer and both Family Report Writers that she wanted to spend time with her father – where there is a divergence of opinion between the experts – where the Court determined that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father for four hours every second Saturday – where the mother will have sole parental responsibility.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Where appeal has been filed – Where it would not be in the children’s interests to order a stay – Refusal to grant a stay pending determination of substantive parenting appeal – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking joinder, a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order and injunctive orders – Where the interlocutory hearing was part-heard – Where the de facto husband made an application for an adjournment on the resumption of the hearing on medical and health grounds – Where the de facto husband exhibited a capacity to prepare comprehensive and considered documents for the purposes of the adjournment application – Where the evidence relied upon by the de facto husband does not establish that he cannot engage in the proceeding, nor does it suggest that he could not retain legal representation should he elect to do so – Oral application of the de facto husband for an adjournment refused – Where dispute exists as to the nature and extent of the de facto husband’s interests in discretionary trusts – Consideration of s 90RI of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as to the nature and extent of disclosure obligations in Pt VIIIAB proceedings – Where the de facto husband’s disclosure of relevant financial circumstances is deficient – Where the property and financial resources of the de facto husband are substantially superior to that of the de facto wife – Where the home occupied by the family and then by the de facto wife and the children for over three years is owned by a trust controlled by the de facto husband or the de facto husband and his sister, the second respondent – Where the de facto husband listed the home for sale – Where orders are made for the joinder of additional respondents upon satisfaction of the thresholds identified in r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where injunctive orders are made for the preservation of the home in specie – Where a dollar for dollar litigation funding order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim orders – application for partial property settlement and litigation funding – applications for interim periodic spousal maintenance and backdated spousal maintenance – valuation of real property – where the composition and value of the property pool is in question – order for interim spousal maintenance – dollar-for-dollar order – order for valuation of a real property the beneficial ownership of which remains in dispute – disclosure.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Where child’s biological father has not participated in these proceedings – Leave granted to the First Applicant stepfather to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer sought that final parenting orders be made by consent in terms contained within a signed Minute of Order provided to the court – Where the orders sought are in the child’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by mother that child continue to live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility and decision making in respect of major and long-term issues affecting the child and that father spend no time with or communicate with the child in circumstances where the child has not seen his father for nearly three years – Application opposed by the father – Father seeks orders that he initially spend supervised time with the child cumulating in unsupervised alternate weekend time, special events and equal time during school holidays – Serious Allegations of family violence made against the father – Orders that child live with the mother and that she have sole decision making for all major long-term issues in respect of the child – Orders that father’s time with and communication with the child be reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay pending appeal – Where the husband appeals from final property and parenting orders and seeks stay of parenting orders pending appeal.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Urgent Interlocutory Application – Where order was made for the children’s return to Australia following wrongful removal – Where there are no current parenting orders in place in Australia – Order for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY APPLICATION – Where the father seeks a stay of final parenting and property orders pending determination of his appeal – Where the father’s application to stay the parenting orders is misconceived – Where, in default of paying the mother a cash sum of $382,800, the father must sell his property to pay the mother – Where the date to pay the mother has passed – Where the order requiring the sale of the father’s property is stayed if the father pays the mother $100,000 within 10 days – Where the mother agrees she does not suffer prejudice by receiving a smaller cash sum while waiting for the father’s appeal to be heard and determined – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband filed an Initiating Application which sought that orders which were made at trial for him to pay $583 a week in spousal maintenance be discharged – Where the wife then filed an Application in a Proceeding which sought that the prosecution of the husband’s Initiating Application be stayed until the husband complied with the spousal maintenance order as well as the costs orders made – Where the husband contended the wife’s application had no real prospect of success – Where the husband, save for one payment of $1,100 in 2022, has made no contribution to the outstanding spousal maintenance – Where the husband has made recent contributions to the costs in the amount of $21,200 – Where the application is in the same cause of action which has been the subject of the previous orders – Where the public policy consideration of compliance with orders outweighs the husband’s right to be heard – Where the Initiating Application is stayed pending compliance with the spousal maintenance and costs orders.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the Court directs a Registrar to forward a copy of the Reasons for Judgment to the Legal Services Commission for its consideration.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Where the father sought orders which would see the child remain living with him in Australia and spending time with the mother whilst she is in Australia – Where the father sought if the mother returned to live in Australia that the child live in an equal time week about arrangement – Where the mother sought that the child move to Country B and live with her and spend time with the father in Country B or in Australia on school holidays, and at any other time he may be in Country B – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought that the child remain living with the father in Australia and spend time with the mother in Australia – Where both parties moved to Australia in 2020 with the child – Where the father is a permanent resident – Where the child is engaged with several therapeutic supports in Australia – Where orders are made for the child to remain living in Australia with the father and to spend time with the mother in Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Where the Court is asked for leave pursuant to pt XIB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) for disclosure of protected material – Where the Respondents do not oppose an order of this nature – Where the Applicant only seeks relief from the statutory non-disclosure provisions to provide material to the Australian Securities and investments Commission – Where the Applicant identifies conflicting statutory obligations between the Act and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Where the Court reviews the nature, scope and extent of the implied common law of non-disclosure undertaking versus the statutory non-disclosure principles – Where the leave requested is technically competent – Where the Court grants the leave sought.

JURISDICTION – Where the Court is asked to review a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and disbursements made under the inherent equitable jurisdiction of the Court – Where the Court determines it holds the inherent power to vary an existing fixed amount for remuneration and disbursements where un-forecast events occurred – Where such inherent power stems from the duty of the Court to make any order necessary to do justice – Where the Court finds that the previous fixed remuneration and disbursements of the liquidator were unreasonable in light of changed circumstances – Where the liquidator proves a prima facie case for reasonableness of further funds sought – Where the liquidator proves, on the face of the document, that disbursements paid were properly incurred and not excessive in quantum – Where the Court orders that the liquidator receive $7,126.90 + GST for remuneration, and $8,032.20 + GST for disbursements from accounts held on trust by the Applicant.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Consideration of relevant principles under s 117 of the Act – where the mother seeks party/party and out of pocket costs – where the father was wholly unsuccessful at first instance – where the father failed to comply with multiple court orders and disclosure obligations – orders made for the father to pay the mother’s costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – FINANCIAL – Where the wife seeks to retain the balance of proceeds from the interim sale of property, superannuation split of the husband’s superannuation fund and spousal maintenance – Where the husband opposes the spousal maintenance – Where the asset pool is modest – Where the wife is subject to an involuntary mental health order – Where the wife’s previous legal representative withdrew as the wife did not have capacity to provide instructions – Where there are a myriad of allegations against the husband – Where the parties have had on-going litigation in India – Asset pool to be divided substantially in favour of the wife – Application for spousal maintenance is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final orders by consent – Superannuation splitting order – Where the wife sought a superannuation splitting order– Where the Court would not make an order without notice being provided to the Trustee – Where the matter was adjourned for notice to be provided – Where the Trustee sought changes to the proposed orders – Where had the approach of the wife been adopted and a party subsequently withdrew their consent, the Court would have knowledge of the parties’ proposed terms of settlement which would preclude it from continuing to hear the matter – Orders made in accordance with amended Consent Orders.

FAMILY LAW – Children – some issues resolved by consent – mother to have parental responsibility for the children – mother permitted to relocate with the children to USA.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for non-publication order – Whether non-publication order necessary to protect the safety of the subject children – Whether application constitutes abuse of process.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the de facto wife seeks an order that the de facto husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount – Where the de facto husband sought that each party pay their own costs – Consideration of factors within s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is not satisfied there are any circumstances justifying departure from the usual order that the each party pay their own costs– Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – URGENT EX PARTE APPLICATION – application for recovery order made by the father – the mother failing to comply with change of residence order – the father contending that the child is at risk – held, recovery order and airport watch list orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE –– Where the respondent sought leave to rely on an affidavit filed the day before the contravention hearing – Where the Court refused leave to rely on the affidavit – Where the respondent was granted leave to make an oral application for adjournment – Where the Court granted the oral application for adjournment – Where the applicant sought their costs for the appearance today – Where the Court made an order in favour of the applicant for costs thrown away.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to vary orders to facilitate a change of residence against a background of the release of the single expert report – Where the report has not yet been tested – Where the final hearing is to commence in six weeks’ time – Where the father has not had an opportunity to put on material and procedural fairness requires that he be given that opportunity – Where there are significant concerns about the parenting capacity of each of the parties – The application is adjourned to the final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COSTS – Where final parenting orders were made – Where the mother filed an Application for a Stay of the final parenting orders – Where the Appeal Division of the Court dismissed the mother’s appeal – Where the husband seeks his costs of and incidental to the Application for a Stay in a fixed sum – Where the father is awarded his costs of and incidental to the Application for a Stay in a fixed amount.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the mother seeks an adjournment on the fourth day of trial – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose an adjournment – Consideration of s 69ZN of the Family Law Act – Consideration of Aon Risk Services v ANU – Consideration of the prejudice to the parties and the children of delaying the proceedings – Where adjournment application is refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties are unable to agree upon a final division of their property – Where applications for ‘add backs’ were made – Equalisation of superannuation entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application in a Proceeding – Expert Evidence – Where the respondent seeks to adduce adversarial valuation evidence in respect of two properties – Where the difference in the two valuations does not constitute knowledge of matters known to one expert but not another, nor does it establish a special reason to adduce the evidence – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where father sought an adjournment of parenting trial so an updated family report could be produced – Where most reasons for seeking an updated report can be the subject of cross-examination – Where family report writer will receive parties’ and witnesses’ trial affidavits – Where children unlikely to be able to engage fully at just five and three years of age – Where case management and court resources can be considered – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the Court issued an injunction restraining the wife from continuing to use her former lawyers – where the wife had improperly accessed documents belonging to the husband and subject to legal professional privilege – where information from those documents was utilised by the wife against the husband in the financial proceedings – where other injunctions were also issued by the Court on 15 May 2025 restraining the wife from making any use for the purpose of these proceedings of certain documents that she had improperly accessed – where a dispute arose in relation to the interpretation of some of the orders made on 15 May 2025 – application in a proceeding filed by the husband on 24 June 2025 dismissed.

FUNCTUS OFFICIO – the order of 15 May 2025 was a final order – the Court was functus officio at the time of the making of the final order on 15 May 2025 – the Court does not have the power to revisit that order at the request of one of the parties.

ISSUE ESTOPPEL – where the same question has already been decided – where the order of 15 May 2025 was a final order – where the parties to the earlier judicial decision are the same persons in the current application in which an estoppel has been raised – each of the elements of issue of estoppel are present – Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363 applied, Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 A.C. 853 and Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507 applied.

ABUSE OF PROCESS – where the Court has been asked to adjudicate on more than 3,000 pages of documents in Chambers – where the request is so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of process.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where father alleges that the mother has fabricated evidence of family violence – Where children have exhibited overtly sexualised behaviours and mother raised the possibility that the father had abused the children - Where the evidence does not establish that the father presents a risk of sexual harm to the children – Mother seeking to relocate to Country J with the children - Expert recommended that the children live with one parent and have identity only time with the other parent due to the high level of parental conflict – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that the children should continue spending time with both parents - Finding that it is in the best interests of the children to maintain a relationship with both parents – Mother’s relocation proposal denied – Orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the children to primarily live with her and spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs of proceedings that resulted in consent orders, proceedings pursuant to s 79A of the Act, and the costs of the application – Where the wife seeks costs on an indemnity basis in a set amount, alternatively in such amount as the Court determines on an indemnity basis, alternatively on a party/party basis in a set amount and alternatively as agreed or assessed – Where the husband sought that each party pay their own costs – Consideration of which costs provision should apply – Where the final hearing had commenced prior to the effective date provided for in the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)– Where s 117 of the Act as previously enacted should apply – Where the Court is satisfied that the circumstances of the husband’s non-disclosure and its consequence warrant an order for indemnity costs.