Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the relief sought in the de facto husband’s oral application has been determined in numerous previous interim reasons for judgment in the proceeding and a raft of procedural orders – Oral application of the de facto husband dismissed – Consideration of the Court making an order on its own motion preventing the de facto relationship parties from filing any new Applications in a Proceeding seeking interlocutory or procedural relief without leave of the Court – Where the fact and content of the Applications in a Proceeding filed by the de facto relationship parties to date have expressed an apparent indifference to the provisions in s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 1.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Order made on the Court’s own motion restraining the de facto wife and the de facto husband from filing any Application in a Proceeding seeking interlocutory or procedural relief without the leave of the Court.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim – Where the children are not presently spending time with the father – Where the father has two criminal convictions relating to the mother – Where the mother has previously facilitated time between the children and the father – Where the convictions do not amount to an unacceptable safety risk to the children – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the husband seeks urgent injunctions against the wife and a third party media organisation – Where the third party media organisation makes appropriate concessions – Where the wife is injuncted from further engaging with media organisations in a manner through which the husband may be identified – Orders made – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Relationship of relatively short duration – Where the husband brought the business into the relationship – Where there is a dispute regarding the value of the business – Where the Court accepts the wife’s allegations of family violence perpetrated by the husband – Where the husband gambled significant funds – Where the wife, by reason of final parenting orders, has sole care of the child – Where contributions are assessed at 75 per cent in the husband’s favour – Where there is a 10 per cent adjustment in the wife’s favour.

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.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Court determines an application for costs after parenting proceedings –Where the Court determines that the conduct of the respondent warrants a costs order – Where the Court declines to make an indemnity costs order – Where the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence as to the nature of the quantum sought – Where the Court discusses the nature, ambit and bounds of the fixed costs power – Where the Court makes an order for fixed costs totalling $38,784.71.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Practice and Procedure –Where the parties seek costs for six applications heard throughout the duration of these proceedings – Where the applicant suggests that the respondent waived their right to claim costs for an application – Where the applicant suggests that the respondent waived their right to seek indemnification for paying the whole of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs – Where the Court deems the respondent to have waived a right to positively assert costs against the applicant for the impugned application – Where the Court deems the respondent to have waived their right to indemnification of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs as a whole.

COSTS– Definition of Conduct – Where the Court distinguishes and questions the approach in Stephens & Stephens (Enforcement) (Costs) (2010) 44 Fam LR 117 – Where an understanding of conduct for costs in matters characterised by coercive and controlling conduct requires an expansive view – Where the respondent’s actions leave the Court with the impression that there is no separation between person and litigant on the facts of this matter.

COSTS – Fixed Costs – Where the Court reviews the factors under s 114UB(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and determines that a costs order should be made in four of the six applications pressed – Where the respondent successfully challenges the manner or accuracy of the quantification of costs sought by the respondent in two applications – Where the Court refuses to order that costs be assessed to reduce conflict between the parties – Where the Court judicially fixes costs at approximately 80% of the sum sought by the applicant for the two questioned applications.

COSTS – Indemnity Costs – Where the Court reviews the factors under s 114UB(3) of the Act and determines that a costs order should be made in four of the six applications pressed – Where the respondent fails to successfully dispute or challenge the quantum sought by the applicant in respect of costs sought in two applications – Where the respondent’s conduct, imprudent refusal of offers and lack of success justify indemnity costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where there have been 17 days of hearing in an application to reconsider parenting arrangements in respect of two children aged 10 and 12 years – where current parenting arrangements are that the children live with the father and have limited supervised time with the mother.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where very experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer arranges mention of matter to ascertain whether it will be ready to resume in a few days’ time – where the mother and the father are each represented by s 102NA lawyers – where mother has consistently had difficulties retaining counsel briefed to appear for her – where mother has changed s 102NA solicitors on numerous occasions – where mother’s solicitor suggests that mother may apply for an adjournment of the resumption of the trial because she does not have counsel – where mother’s solicitor says he is disinclined to appear as counsel and take up cross-examination of the father.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where parties have access to transcript for 10 days of hearing but seek that the Court provide them with transcript of all of the hearing – where no further transcript is ordered.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where matter was adjourned partway through cross-examination of the father – where father’s practitioners are permitted to speak with father to obtain instructions to respond to further applications or to make further applications.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs – Where properties were listed for auction pursuant to default sale provisions of final property orders – Where the second respondent disclosed the existence of various encumbrances shortly prior to auction – Where the purported encumbrances were not disclosed during the parties’ final property proceedings – Where the wife brought an Enforcement Application – Where the respondents consented to orders the effect of which was to remove the purported encumbrances – Where the wife seeks costs on an indemnity basis – Consideration of s 117 factors – Conduct designed to thwart operation of default sale mechanisms – Respondents wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – Order for indemnity costs against the respondents.

FAMILY LAW – EX PARTE –Where the husband seeks an ex parte injunction against the wife and a third party media organisation – Where the matter is urgent – Where it is not appropriate to proceed in the absence of the other parties – Matter adjourned – Orders for service.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where child unilaterally retained in Australia by father from a non-Hague Convention country – Where in child’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents – If child in Australia, enforceable orders can be made to ensure child spends time with both parents – If child resides with mother in a non-Hague Convention country, then no legal mechanism available to ensure child spends time with both parents – Child to live with father in Australia – Mother’s employer only permits two international exits from her country per year – Father to pay for mother’s travel to and accommodation in Australia twice per year – Value of fact cases.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Consideration of whether to adjourn trial, proceed undefended or dismiss application — Where the applicant’s legal representatives withdrew three days prior to final hearing — Where the applicant cannot travel to Australia due to a court order made in the People’s Republic of China — Whether the applicant can legally give evidence in China in foreign proceedings —Where the husband owes significant debts to the Australian Taxation Office — Finding of outstanding valuations — Trial vacated — Applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Major Complex Financial Proceedings List – De facto relationship of over 20 years – Alteration of property interests pursuant to s 90SM – Where the parties largely agree on the form of order with the exception of a cash adjustment which requires an assessment of ss 90SM(4) and 90SF(3) factors.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – where the applicant father attended at the Court on the first morning of the trial but departed the Court before the trial commenced– where the father had lawyers present but he failed to provide those lawyers with instructions – where the matter proceeded on an undefended basis – extensive history of family violence considered – where the Court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to grant the mother permission to relocate the residence of the children to the United States of America.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the applicant filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking joinder, a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order and injunctive orders – Where the first respondent has contracted to sell real property – Where the parties proposed to be joined hold mortgages registered on the title to the property to be sold – Orders made for the joinder of additional respondents – Where injunctive orders are made for the preservation of proceeds of sale of the property contracted to be sold by the first respondent – Where a dollar for dollar litigation funding order is refused.

FAMILY LAW – – PARENTING – Ex tempore Comments – whether audio recording (and transcript thereof) can be admitted into evidence – evidence supports mother’s allegations of family violence.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the first final hearing was adjourned due to the Mother experiencing a breakdown – Where the Mother was previously the children’s primary caregiver – Where the children entered the Father’s care after the aborted final hearing and have remained in his care since – Where the children have been spending professionally supervised time with the Mother – Where the Mother’s mental health challenges are significant but she is in receipt of psychological support – Where the Mother experiences significant anxiety communicating with the Father – Where no findings sought that the Father has engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour in circumstances where the evidence is unsatisfactory – Where the children’s views to spend more time with their Mother have been considered – Where orders made by consent for the children to live with the Father – Where orders made by consent for the Father to have sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term decisions – Where orders made for the children to spend alternate weekends and school holiday time with the Mother – Where certain restraints made against both parents – Where no order made with respect to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in circumstances where the Mother is in receipt of legal aid and the Father will incur financial hardship.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks a variation of an interlocutory injunction to preserve property and other interlocutory and procedural orders – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – Oral application of the second respondent, the husband’s sister, to be removed as a party to the s 79 proceeding – Where the husband, the wife and the husband’s sister are members of a self-managed superannuation fund and officers of the corporate trustee of the fund – Where the husband’s sister expressly acknowledges that the fund has been occasioned procedural fairness in terms of the orders sought by way of a superannuation split and for the fund to liquidate real property – Orders made removing the second respondent as a party to the proceeding.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the Mother moved to Country L and the child has been living with the Father since that time – Where the Mother was previously the child’s primary caregiver – Where at the final hearing the Mother indicated her intention to relocate back to Australia – Where the Father was supportive of the child spending more time with the Mother upon her relocation, on the condition that certain information as to the child’s residence be provided to him – Where orders made for the child to live with the Father and spend time with the Mother both while she continues to reside in Country L and upon her relocation to Australia – Where orders made for the child to travel with the Mother to Country  provided the Mother has been resident in Australia for six months at the time of travel – Where order made for joint decision-making responsibility with respect to major long-term decisions – Where benefits to children of both parents’ input into such decisions considered – Where no order made as to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in circumstances where the Mother will incur travel or relocation costs and where the Father currently has sole care of the child.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs on indemnity basis – Where the wife consents to the application by the third and fourth respondents to be removed as parties – Where the third and fourth respondent seek their costs of that application and the proceedings generally –Where the third and fourth respondents were previously joined by consent – Where the wife submitted the costs should not be determined until after the final hearing or if ordered that any costs be paid by the husband – Consideration of s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied to make an order for costs – Where the third and fourth respondents failed to address the basis for indemnity costs –Wife ordered to pay the third and fourth respondents costs fixed in the sum of $20,000.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks orders that the husband pay her costs of and incidental to the hearing of her urgent injunctive interlocutory application on an indemnity basis or in the alternative on a party/party basis – Where the application ought to have been unnecessary but for the husband’s failure to comply with an order restraining him from disposing of property – Exceptional circumstances to justify an order for indemnity costs established – Order for indemnity costs in a fixed sum made in favour of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Significant non-disclosure by the husband – Court to not be unduly cautious in making its assessment in those circumstances – 5 per cent adjustment to wife on contributions – Where the husband has a significantly greater income earning capacity – 10 per cent adjustment to the wife for future needs.

CHILD MAINTENANCE – Where the residence of the husband is not known or in a non-reciprocating jurisdiction for child support – Where the wife has full-time care of the children in the USA – Lump sum child maintenance ordered for each child.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the first respondent husband (“the husband”) did not appear at the final hearing – Where the husband did not file material in accordance with trial directions – Where the applicant wife (“the wife”) and the husband owned and operated a business through a company – Where that company was the subject of a winding up application – Where a creditor of the company is joined as the second respondent – Where one of the husband’s previous solicitors have intervened in the proceedings and seek the payment of outstanding legal costs as owed by the husband to the intervener – Where the husband unilaterally withdrew and kept for his sole benefit significant assets and sums from the parties and their entities – Where the husband’s financial circumstances are unknown – Where there is family violence – Sale proceeds of the company to be applied towards payment of the second respondent creditor – Sale proceeds of real property to be distributed to the wife – Superannuation splitting orders made.

FAMILY LAW – Children – Interim orders – Where the parties consented to majority of the orders – Where orders made in respect of the remaining issues in dispute – Where an injunction to restrain a family member from spending time with the children is refused – Where the refusal of the injunction does not compromise the welfare of the children.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – application for adjournment – where the applicant seeks the final hearing be adjourned on the first day of the final hearing– where the applicant is a self-represented litigant - where the applicant has not filed any trial material – where the applicant is prohibited under s 102NA from cross-examining the respondent – whether the applicant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case - where the proceedings have already been significantly delayed - where an adjournment would result in significant further delay – where the applicant was unable to demonstrate that it would be procedurally unfair to continue - where it is in the child's bests interests to refuse the application – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the applicant sought a division of the total property of the parties contained in pool one which would see her receive 65 per cent – Where the respondent sought a division of the total property of the parties contained in pool one which would see him receive 55 per cent – Where after reserving judgment the respondent’s stepfather passed away – Where the respondent will receive an inheritance from his stepfather – Where those monies are to be dealt with by agreement in a separate pool – Where the applicant held US interests which were the subject of significant dispute – Where issues as to disclosure formed a substantial aspect of the proceeding – Where there are significant issues as to the credit of the applicant – Where the applicant sought an order for spousal maintenance for a period of five years – Where orders are made which are just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application for adjournment of final hearing — Unavailability of single expert valuation evidence — Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim proceedings – Where the wife seeks an injunction against the husband’s parents pursuant to s 90AF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) preventing them from enforcing a Judgment obtained in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales following a contested hearing – Where the wife contested the validity and enforceability of loans in the Supreme Court proceedings – Where the Supreme Court entered Judgment in favour of the husband’s parents – Where on the day prior to the interim hearing, the wife filed an Amended Response to Initiating Application seeking orders to set aside the loans pursuant to s 106B of the Act – Where the application made pursuant to s 106B of the Act was abandoned at the commencement of the interim hearing – Where the Court determines that the wife’s application to injunct the husband’s parents from enforcing the Supreme Court proceedings is without merit – Orders made dismissing the application.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking the joinder of the husband’s parents to the proceedings – Consideration as to the mandate as to joinder in r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the wife seeks no relief against the husband’s parents – Orders made dismissing the application.

FAMILY LAW – LITIGATION GUARDIAN – Where applicant mother needs a litigation guardian – Where first and second respondents oppose the proposed litigation guardian, including for being too involved in the mother’s affairs – Where proposed guardian has no interest in the proceedings adverse to the mother and can fairly and competently conduct the proceedings – Where request to Attorney-General futile – Where court retains a supervisory role over guardians – When a litigation guardian can be removed – Consideration of the overarching principles – Orders made appointing the proposed litigation guardian.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where a party seeks to join another party’s solicitors to the substantive proceedings – Where oral submissions make no legal or factual sense – Where the argued legal principles have no application – Where joinder application is dismissed

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Non-compliance with the overarching purpose identified in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), and failure to comply with orders and directions – Consideration as to the striking out of each party’s substantive relief – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the parties are unable to agree on what orders, if any, should be made with respect to the supervised time that one of the children is to spend with the mother – Where the parties are in dispute as to what configuration of unsupervised time should occur as between the mother and the other child – Orders made for one of the children to spend time with the mother, on at least one occasion each fortnight, supervised by an agreed lay person – Orders made for the other child to live equally between the parents in a regime of time that had been in place as agreed between the parents at an earlier juncture.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bifurcation of proceedings – Where second to fourth respondents are the husband’s parents and an entity controlled by them – Where wife seeks relief against the second to third respondents in the form of a remedial constructive trust founded on proprietary estoppel – Where second to fourth respondents seek separate hearing of claim against them.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen trial and adduce further evidence – Where proposed further evidence more likely to prejudice the party seeking to reopen than to assist – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Allegations of family violence – Where the course of the litigation has been long delayed by virtue of multiple applications and multiple appeals instigated by the father – Where the trial commenced on 7 March 2023 – Where the trial was adjourned – Where the father appealed against orders made on 8 March 2023 – Where the appeal was dismissed by the Full Court – Where the father’s application for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was dismissed in March 2024 – Where the father failed to attend Court for the continuation of the final hearing on 5 June 2025 without a reasonable excuse – Where the trial proceeded in the absence of the father – Where the father appealed against orders made on 5 June 2025 including an interim order for the father’s supervised time with the children to be suspended pending the delivery of judgment – Where each appeal was substantially dismissed by the Full Court – Where the failure by the father to attend court on 5 June 2025 meant that the father and his witnesses were not available for cross-examination – Where the Court proceeded to finalise the hearing in respect of parenting and property on 5 June 2025 – Where after the conclusion of the final hearing the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer were given an opportunity to provide written submissions in respect of parenting and property matters as applicable – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer provided written submissions in respect of the relevant issues – Where the father failed to provide any written submissions whatsoever in respect of either parenting or property – Bests interests of the children considered – Family violence allegations considered – Risk issues in respect of the children considered – Where it is concluded that it is in the best interests of the children that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the children live with the mother and spend no time with and have no communication with the father.

PROPERTY – Where the Court took into account all relevant considerations as required in respect of the property adjustment proceedings pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court concluded that an adjustment of the property interests of the parties in the amount of 75 per cent to the wife and 25 per cent to the husband was just and equitable.

STAY APPLICATION – Where the father brought a stay application in late 2025 pending a proposed application for Special Leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and pending an application to the High Court of Australia for a writ of prohibition – Where the mother provided written submissions in relation to the father’s stay application – Where the father provided written submission in respect of his own stay application – Application for a stay dismissed.

VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS ORDER – Where the Court received detailed written submissions from the Independent Children’s Lawyer in relation to the making of a vexatious proceedings order against the father – Where the mother provided written submissions in respect of a proposed vexatious proceedings order – Where the father failed to provide any written submissions in relation to the proposed vexatious proceedings order – Where the Court considered the applications and appeals instituted by the father – Where the Court concluded that the father is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts – Where a vexatious proceedings order against the father is made pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Best interests of the child – Where the child has an autism spectrum disorder, global developmental delay and speech/language delay – Where the father has previously not accepted that the child has been diagnosed with disabilities – Where the child requires significant support to meet his needs – Where the child enjoys spending time with each parent – Consideration of the father’s capacity to provide for the child’s needs – Finding that the father engaged in family violence – Mother exposed to physical abuse and exposed to a pattern of coercive conduct which continued post-separation and caused the mother to be fearful – Where allegations have been made relating to a history of family violence on the part of the father perpetrated against former intimate partners – Where the Single Expert expressed concern about the likelihood of there being incidents of family violence within the father’s household – Child live with the mother – Child spend supervised time with the father.

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the parties consented to a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between them – Where notwithstanding the declaration, the husband advances a case that the parties were never in a de facto relationship – Where, if a de facto relationship existed, the Court is requested to determine the period of that relationship – Held that a de facto relationship did exist in the period from July 2015 to 2 November 2021.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Premature disposal of assets – Effect of family violence on the de facto wife’s current and future circumstances – Effect of parenting arrangements on the de facto wife’s current and future circumstances – Disputed loans – Where the de facto husband contends that he owes monies to third parties – Where the purported creditors either did not address the topic of the loans by the relevant creditor’s affidavit and/or where other creditors were not on affidavit.

FAMILY LAW – MAINTENANCE – Where it is proper that there be a lump sum payment of maintenance.

FAMILY LAW – Nullity of marriage – Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment – Where the husband sought a declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of duress – Where the husband became tearful during the proceedings and subsequently sought an adjournment of the proceedings to seek medical care – Where the matter was stood down for several hours to enable the husband to obtain any necessary advice or support – Where the husband failed to appear upon resumption of the proceedings – Orders adjourning the matter for five days – Orders requiring the husband to personally attend at the adjourned court date and to file evidence of his treating medical practitioner as to the reasons for his non-attendance at Court.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Stay application – Where the applicant sought a stay of final costs orders subject to appeal – Where the respondent opposed the stay application – Where there was no reason to question the bona fides of the applicant – Aldridge & Keaton applied – Application granted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the Court decided to dismiss the application for property adjustment made pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the husband was required to pay $500 per week to the wife for a period of 2 and half years on certain conditions.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parents agreed on a number of orders and these were made on 2 and 3 February 2026 – Where the parties agreed that the Court should decide the remaining parenting issues after hearing submissions and without the need for any cross-examination – Orders made in the best interests of the children.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the child currently lives with the father in Australia and the mother lives overseas – Where the matter has been set down for final hearing commencing in June 2026 – Where the mother has serious concerns in relation to the father’s mental health and functioning following his recent conduct – Orders made providing for phone communication between the child and the mother in circumstances where the father has recently ceased facilitating such contact – Orders made pursuant to s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requesting the intervention of the Department of Communities and Justice.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for interim parenting orders – Where the child was born in the United States and now lives with the applicants in Australia – Where the first respondent has commenced proceedings in the Eighth Judicial District Court of State B, Family Division, Region C, State B seeking orders for the return of the child to the US – Where the first respondent has applied to the US Central Authority for steps to be taken pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Where the applicants seek injunctions preventing respondents from taking any steps which would adversely impact on child living with them.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the first respondent requests adjournment to allow legal representation – Where orders are made for an adjournment of application for interim parenting orders to allow first respondent to obtain legal representation and to allow potential Central Authority application for return orders pursuant to Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 – Where an order is made for provision of Reasons to US Court – Where the parties are given liberty to apply on short notice.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – verbal application by the respondent for an adjournment of the threshold issue, namely the date of the parties’ separation – the son of the de facto wife and the late de facto husband, having commenced Supreme Court litigation for orders removing the respondents as the executrices of the estate of the deceased – adjournment granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where father objects to subpoena directed to his treating therapist principally on the basis that the evidence of a single expert psychiatrist is adequate – where the distinction between a therapist’s evidence and evidence of a single expert witness is discussed – where single expert witness recommends that the father continue under the care of his therapist – where father expresses a number of other grounds of objection to the subpoena which are irrelevant and misconceived – where father’s objection to subpoena is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE where father interjects consistently and behaves in manner which disrupts the court process – where in electronic hearings the father’s microphone has been muted – that, if the father persists with his disruptive behaviour in a fully attended hearing, the father may be excluded from the courtroom and have to participate from another room in the court building.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Notice of Objection to Subpoena – Where three subpoena were filed seeking production of materials relating to the travel of an alleged contravention – Where the alleged contravener (“the Objector”) filed a Notice of Objection in response to each subpoena – Where the Objector disputed the breadth of the documents sought – Where the Objector disputed the relevance of documents sought – Where the Court limited the scope of material produced – Where the subpoena were otherwise of forensic relevance – Where the Court reserves costs of the cause for consideration by the trial judge at the conclusion of the contravention proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim parenting orders – Where final parenting orders made on 8 August 2025 – Where final orders suspended and varied on 24 December 2025 – Where the children have been in the primary care of the mother in breach of final orders since 18 February 2026 – Where the competing applications are listed for a final hearing on a third occasion between 12 and 14 May 2026 - Where the children will remain in the care of the mother pending a determination of the parties’ applications on a final basis.

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFCATION – Apprehended bias – Where an application for disqualification is made subsequent to the delivery of Reasons for Judgment on 8 August 2025 – Where the application is made despite the primary judge’s involvement in a substantive hearing on 24 December 2025 – All grounds fail – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Contested threshold hearing as to the existence of a de facto relationship – Where the applicant seeks her costs of that application – Where neither party are in a strong financial position – Where the proceedings were hard fought but not improperly so – Where the respondent was entirely unsuccessful – Where the respondent’s claims made in the Supreme Court were subsumed into the threshold hearing and devoid of merit – Costs order justified – Where the respondent submitted the costs should not be assessed until after the final hearing – Where it is in the interests of the parties for costs to be fixed presently – Where the quantum claimed has already been substantially discounted – Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of the costs application.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Consideration as to the relevance of instructing a ch 7 single expert to provide a current opinion as to the value of a real property held by a trust or corporate entity when the opinion of a ch 7 single forensic accounting expert as to the value of the trust or corporation is to occur at an earlier date – Whether an order made as to the husband meeting the costs of ch 7 single expert evidence in the first instance ought to be varied – Where the wife seeks the disclosure of documents subject of a deed of confidentiality – Consideration as to the relevance of the documents to issues in the proceeding – Whether a confidentiality deed in the circumstances has priority over the continuing and absolute obligation to disclose relevant documents and information – Where the use of documents obtained by way of disclosure are protected as identified by the High Court in Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125, as provided for in r 6.04 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and as provided for by legal professional conduct legislation.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband makes an application to discharge an interlocutory injunction for the preservation of property – Where the husband fails to establish that funds remitted to China could not be recovered – Where the husband fails to establish that he could not comply with the injunction to cause funds to be deposited into a specified bank account – Where the wife seeks costs and the husband opposes costs – Where the husband’s application was unsuccessful – Application in a Proceeding of the husband dismissed – Costs ordered to wife in fixed sum.