Judgments

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 & 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 – Application for Review – Where the mother filed an Application for Review of interim orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar (“SJR”) – Where the mother sought to review four orders made by the SJR which related to the live with, spend time with and changeover arrangements for the children – Where the mother contended that the four orders to be reviewed did not promote the safety of the children in accordance with s 60CC(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer both opposed any change of the orders of the SJR – Where the Court dismissed the Application for Review.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto husband claims legal professional privilege attaching to two documents annexed to the de facto wife’s trial affidavit – Where it is conceded that the documents attract advice privilege pursuant to s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where it is contended the privilege has been subject to a waiver pursuant to s 122(2) of the Evidence Act – Where the party contending waiver bears the onus of establishing it – Where there is no direct evidence as to a discussion between the parties as to the contents of the specific letters subject to the claim for legal professional privilege – Waiver not established – Claim for legal professional privilege upheld.

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 – JURISDICTION – Where there is a competition between the court’s jurisdiction and the Serbian courts enlivening Pt XIIIAA, Div 4, sub-div B of the Act – where the court keeps jurisdiction under Article 7 of the Child Protection Convention – where the respondent asserted that Australia is clearly an inappropriate forum – held Australia is not a clearly inappropriate forum.

PARENTING – best interests considerations – where the child was wrongfully removed from Australia – where the Hungarian courts determined the child’s place of habitual residence was Australia – where the respondent subsequently relocated the child to Serbia – where the child and the respondent continue to reside in Serbia – where the Serbian courts determined the child’s habitual residence was Serbia – where the child speaks only Hungarian and has not communicated with the applicant for over five years - where the court found that the child will suffer the least amount of harm remaining in the respondent’s care – where the court finds it is inappropriate to make orders in the circumstances.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Adjustment of property interests – Long marriage of 16 years – Seven-year post separation period – Where the wife has been the primary income earner – Where the wife has acquired property post separation in the USA – Where the husband has been the primary carer of the parties’ now 15-year-old child including in the post separation period while the wife has lived in the USA – Where the court determines to approach the matter using one pool – Where contributions favour the wife at 60 per cent – Where an adjustment of eight per cent is made in favour of the husband on account of his current and future needs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Property acquired before marriage – Contributions – Dispute between the parties in relation to the business owned and operated throughout the marriage – Future needs – Long relationship – Just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where there is an application for adjustment under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the parties acquired and operated a gym business during their relationship – Where the wife controlled the business after separation, from June 2021 until the husband assumed control in January 2025 – Where the husband seeks to retain the business and the wife does not – Where the husband seeks to receive the bulk of the net asset pool, being both parties’ interest in the business and the remaining proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks an alteration of 70 per cent of the net asset pool in her favour – Where the wife unilaterally received the benefit of a large portion of business income during the period the business was under her control – Where the wife failed to comply with interim orders put in place to preserve the parties’ assets and ensure the business was operated in a financially responsible way – Where the wife’s deliberate conduct and material wastage was made out on the evidence – Where it is just and equitable for the husband to retain the business and receive the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Notice of Objection to Subpoena – Where the applicant claims legal advice or litigation privilege attach to documents produced by his former legal representative – Where orders were made for the applicant to produce schedules identifying which documents attract such privilege – Where the respondent suggests that the applicant’s schedules are insufficient to identify the nature of the documents and the circumstances in which they were brought into existence – Where the Court broadly accepts the submissions of the applicant – Where the Court reviews four documents that were not described with sufficient clarity – Where the Court upholds the applicant’s Notice of Objection – Subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where final parenting orders have previously been made – Where one of the children’s mental health significantly deteriorated following the making of final orders – Where one child currently spends limited supervised time with the father and the other refuses to spend time – Where the mother seeks to reduce the father’s professionally supervised time spending from monthly to four occasions per year – Where one child has threatened self-harm and physically threatened her sister – Where the father holds fixed and dogmatic negative views about the mother – Where the Court accepts that the mother has acted protectively – Where the father seeks unsupervised time spending each alternate weekend in relation to one child and the other child to spend time in accordance with her wishes – Where the Court is satisfied the children are at risk of ongoing emotional and psychological harm by the father – Where the Court cannot exclude the risk of physical harm to the children by the father – Orders made for the children to spend professionally supervised time with the father limited to four occasions per year subject to their wishes – Where ongoing supervised time spending is suitably protective – Injunction granted restraining the father from attending at the children’s school, medical appointments and extra-curricular activities.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Where the respondent did not attend the final hearing – Where the respondent did not file trial material – Where the respondent provided no medical evidence as to her inability to participate – Leave granted to proceed on an undefended basis.

CHILDREN – Parenting orders - Where the respondent has not spent substantive time with the child since January 2025 – Where the respondent denies allegations of drug use despite positive hair follicle test results – Orders made for the child to live with the applicant and the applicant to have sole responsibility for major long-term decisions.

PROPERTY – Where the respondent has not provided full and frank disclosure – Where the applicant’s initial contributions were significant – Where the relationship was of short duration – Where the parties had shared interest in a business – Where there is limited evidence as to the respondent’s total assets and liabilities – Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Parenting proceedings – Application for costs – Indemnity costs – Where the respondent unilaterally removed the children from Australia – Where the respondent fraudulently obtained passports for the children – Where there has been sustained non‑compliance with Court orders – Where the respondent misled the Court and failed to participate in proceedings – Where conduct characterised as egregious – Indemnity costs ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Undefended hearing – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought final orders be made in the absence of the Mother – Where there is a history of non-attendance and non-compliance by the Mother – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders by consent for the Father to have sole decision making responsibility, for the child to live with him, for the Father to be able to obtain an Australian passport for the child without the consent of the Mother, and for the Father to be able to travel internationally with the child without the consent of the Mother – Where the Court made final orders by agreement as between the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer and in the absence of the Mother.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Representation of corporate parties – Where the Seventh and Eighth Respondents are corporate entities who have failed to file Notices of Address for Service – Where the husband is the director of the Seventh and Eighth Respondents and is himself self-represented – Where leave is granted for the corporate entities to carry on proceedings otherwise than by a lawyer pursuant to r 3.09 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where leave is granted for the corporate entities to carry on proceedings by their director in person.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Service – Where the wife seeks to dispense with the requirements for further service on the Sixth Respondent – Where nine attempts at service or notification of the proceedings have been made to date – Where these attempts were made by tracked Express Post, Facebook, Instagram, SMS and telephone call – Where the Sixth Respondent has failed to respond to any of these attempts – Where the Court finds that the Sixth Respondent has notice of the proceedings – Where the cost and effort involved in these attempts is minimal – Where the wife is ordered continue to serve the Sixth Respondent with relevant documents in this manner, notwithstanding the Sixth Respondent’s failure to respond.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Undefended Hearing – Where the Court had previously adjourned the matter part-heard – Where the final hearing was set to resume – Where the respondent father (“the father”) did not attend the hearing – Where the father discontinued his application before the Court by way of signed letter handed up by his counsel – Where the father’s legal representatives sought leave to withdraw from the proceedings – Where the Court granted leave for the father’s legal representatives to withdraw – Where the final hearing proceeded on an undefended basis in regards to the father.

PARENTING – Time Arrangements – Where the applicant mother (“the mother”) and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders in identical terms – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer agreed that sole parental responsibility be provided to the mother, that the child live with the mother, and the father be restrained from collecting the child from school – Where the Court made final orders in the terms sought by the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – De facto relationship – Where the parties signed a financial agreement prior to commencing a de facto relationship – Where the applicant claims she was not given legal advice about the effect of the agreement on her rights – Where the agreement provided for each party to retain their separate property – Where the solicitor’s advice and file note are in evidence – Where neither party called the solicitor – Where the parties’ circumstances at the time were accurately recorded in the agreement – Where the applicant was advised she would not be able to make a claim for the respondent’s property – Where any further advice about the applicant’s rights would depend on speculation as to the nature and length of the relationship – Where the advice was sufficient – Where it would otherwise be unjust and inequitable for the agreement to not be binding due to any failure to give sufficient advice – Declaration the agreement is a binding financial agreement.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where there are allegations by the mother of family violence perpetrated by the father – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with the father – Orders made for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility for the children – Orders made permitting the father to send the children short letters and cards.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where solicitor acted for husband in long-running enforcement proceedings – Where solicitor facilitated breaches of court orders by husband – Where solicitor purported to act for separately represented second respondent as well as husband in impugned transactions – Where in so doing, solicitor facilitated breaches of court orders by second respondent – Referral to Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final hearing – International relocation – Where the father engaged in serious family violence during the relationship – Where the father has numerous deficits to his parenting capacity – Where the father has a limited relationship with the children – Where the mother identifies significant benefits which she and the children will derive from living in another country – Where the mother’s family live in the country of her desired relocation – Orders made permitting the mother to internationally relocate the children – Orders made for the father to spend supervised time with the children on an ongoing basis in Australia and the country of the mother’s choosing.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Penalty – Where the Court previously determined that the respondent had contravened an order to return the parties children to the Commonwealth of Australia without reasonable excuse and beyond reasonable doubt – Where further submissions on the penalty to be imposed were ordered – Where the applicant sought the imposition of the maximum pecuniary penalty and for the respondent to enter into a bond – Where the respondent submitted that no penalty should be imposed – Where the respondent cavilled with the Courts findings – Where the Court deems the seriousness of the contravention and the conduct of the respondent as aggravating factors – Where the Court imposes a pecuniary penalty of $19,800 on the respondent – Where the Court explained the nature, seriousness and consequences of entering into a bond – Where the Court orders that the respondent enter into a 12 month bond to be of good behaviour and to comply with orders of this Court – Where both penalties are suspended for a three (3) month period to enable to respondent to return to the Commonwealth of Australia.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Interim Orders – ex-tempore reasons - father bail refused – mother admits using methamphetamines – paternal grandmother seeks live with order – ICL and Department of Communities and Justice NSW (DCJ) raise issues with paternal grandmother’s insight into risks posed by father – ICL and DCJ seek orders giving decision making authority to DCJ – DCJ may consider the paternal grandmother as a placement along with other family members: Orders as proposed by ICL and DCJ.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the husband seeks indemnity costs – Where the wife filed an Application for Review seeking discharge of orders for the valuation of real property prior to the hearing of final property proceedings – Where the wife asserted that the valuation orders were inappropriate as other assets held by the husband had not been valued – Where the trial judge made orders for valuation of the husband’s property subsequent to filing of the wife’s Application for Review – Where the husband asserted that the wife’s application had no prospect of success and raised a presumption of ulterior motive – Where the Application for Review was misconceived – Wife wholly unsuccessful – No evidence that the wife brought her application so as to frustrate Court orders –– Exceptional circumstances not established – Costs ordered in a fixed amount calculated in accordance with Scale.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the wife sought an adjournment of an interlocutory application for the substitution of the husband's litigation guardian pending determination of a Notice of Motion filed by her in the Supreme Court – Where it is counterintuitive to delay the removal of the litigation guardian for an indeterminate period having regard to the provisions of 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) – Where the relief prosecuted in the interlocutory application has been allocated scarce judicial time for determination in the shadow of a looming complex trial – Where an adjournment may have the impact of stalling the progression of the matter for trial or may imperil trial dates – Where the application of the wife for an adjournment of the interlocutory application of the husband is refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –  Application of the wife to impose a condition of the discharge of the functions of a substituted litigation to mandate that he not instruct the current solicitors acting for the husband in these proceedings – Where the wife filed a Notice of Motion in the Supreme Court of New South Wales the day prior to the interlocutory hearing seeking an order of the same import as sought in these proceedings – Where it is uncontroversial that an independent person appointed as the husband's financial manager in concurrent Supreme Court litigation ought be appointed as the husband's litigation guardian in the current proceedings – Where a condition on the appointment of the substituted litigation guardian is refused – Orders made removing the husband’s current litigation guardian and appointing a new litigation guardian – Costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – LITIGATION GUARDIAN – Where more than one litigation guardian proposed – Whether proposed guardian can fairly and competently conduct proceedings – Relevance of protected person’s preferences versus need for independent judgement – Protective purpose of litigation guardianship – Appointment of experienced solicitor as litigation guardian in best interests of protected party.

FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Application for leave to adduce adversarial expert evidence – Where the applicant and the respondent were both tardy in supplying the expert witness with their respective statements of fact – Where the applicant supplied the expert witness with his statement of facts after the report was due for completion – Where the expert witness therefore delivered her report less than four business days before the commencement of the trial – Where the  respondent wife seeks leave and an adjournment to adduce adversarial expert evidence – Where the time to ask the expert witness questions has not elapsed – Where neither party has availed themselves of the opportunity to ask the expert witness questions – Where the respondent’s application for leave to adduce adversarial expert evidence is therefore premature – Where the time for parties to ask questions of the expert witness pursuant to r 7.26(1)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) is extended – Where the wife’s application is struck out rather than dismissed on its merits.

EVIDENCE – Where the respondent seeks to rely upon a Non-Binding Indicative Offer in support of her application for leave to adduce adversarial expert evidence – Where the Non-Binding Indicative Offer is not an offer but an invitation to treat or a mere puff – Where, even if the Non-Binding Indicative Offer were an offer, it would be inadmissible as evidence of value.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where judgment debt was entered in the Supreme Court of Victoria in favour of the intervener against the husband – Where the wife commenced financial proceedings in this Court against the husband – Where the judgment debt and accrued interests is allocated exclusively to the husband – Where the wife is to retain the assets in her name and receive 30 per cent of the remaining assets with the intervener to be entitled to the balance.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where a creditor of the bankrupt husband sought to set aside a binding financial agreement between the husband and the wife and two subsequent deeds between the wife and the husband’s trustee in bankruptcy – Where the creditor’s application was dismissed – Where the wife seeks an order for costs against the creditor – Where the creditor’s case in relation to the binding financial agreement was successful – Where the creditor’s case in relation to the two subsequent deeds was weak – Where the wife pursued a number of unsuccessful arguments at trial – Where the creditor rejected an offer of settlement at the commencement of the trial – Creditor to pay 60 per cent of the wife’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Where the failure of the applicant to comply with orders triggered a self-executing order striking out her substantive relief – Where the applicant sought leave to make an oral application to extend time to comply with the defaulted order – Because the order striking out the substantive application had been executed, leave to make the oral application in the terms constructed by the applicant, if granted, had no prospect of success – Application for leave to make an oral application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – INTERNATIONAL RELOCATION – Where the mother sought to relocate with the children to the United States of America – Where the father opposed the mother’s proposed relocation – Where the Court is not persuaded the proposed international relocation is in the best interests of the children – Where the father has a significant and longstanding history of serious mental health issues – Where the father at trial held the belief he did not suffer from any mental illness – Where the father sought an equal time parenting regime – Where the mother sought that time only occur on a supervised basis – Where it is ordered that the time the children spend with the father will be on an ongoing supervised basis.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – property proceedings - where the applicant seeks orders on default pursuant to rule 10.27(g) of the Rules - where the respondent has consistently failed to make proper disclosure – where rules 10.26 and 10.27 are engaged – where the respondent is provided a further opportunity to make full and frank disclosure –where the respondent shall bear the applicant’s costs of the application subject to any submissions the respondent might wish to make – application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – – application for costs – indemnity costs – where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in seeking to set aside orders altering property interests pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the usual party‑to‑party basis – costs awarded on a party‑to‑party basis – application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN — Decision making responsibility — Overseas travel — Injunctions — Where the parties communicate only via a parenting app — Where daily communication is functional but miscommunications about the child’s health and education have resulted in impasse — Relevance of allegations of family violence.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks an order that the parenting proceeding between she and the husband be listed for a separate trial from the property proceeding between them – Consideration as to whether the listing of a separate issue trial pursuant to r 10.10 and r 10.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) equates to a determination to bifurcate separate causes prosecuted under the same proceeding number, having regard to the matters identified by the Full Court in Gilford & Cavaco (2024) FLC 94-183 – Where production of ch 7 single expert valuation evidence required for the financial proceeding will take considerable time – Where the second to fifth respondents have no interest in the parenting proceeding – Where findings made in the parenting proceeding will not adversely impact upon findings available in the financial proceeding – Where there would be little cross over as to the subject matter of the evidence given by other witnesses for the purposes of the parenting proceeding as against the property proceeding – Where hearing dates can be expeditiously allocated to determine the parenting proceeding – Orders made to list the parenting proceeding for trial and the property proceeding for separate management.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Service – order that service be taken to have taken place on a particular date.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Commencement of proceedings – proceedings validly commenced.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Litigation guardian – where the applicant seeks an inquiry into the competence of the third respondent.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought an order for indemnity costs – Where the husband opposed the making of any costs order – Where final orders were made dismissing the husband’s application to commence proceedings against the wife – Where the husband was wholly unsuccessful in the substantive proceedings – Where the husband instituting the substantive proceedings was found to be an abuse of process – Where the wife’s costs are reasonable in the circumstances – Costs order made against the husband on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – arising out the adjudication of a section 102NA application.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the applicant seeks orders pursuant to s 79A, interim orders as to disclosure and the enforcement of existing final property orders –Where the applicant alleges that there has been inadequate disclosure – Where the time to address such issues was at trial – Where the applicant alleges the respondent has not complied with procedural orders effecting the transfer of his control and interest in a self-managed to her – Where the applicant’s contentions are not borne out on the evidence.

PROCEDURE – Where the judge that heard the application disqualified her involvement in the proceedings whilst the judgement was reserved – Where there was no cross examination at trial – Where the parties agreed that a fresh trial was not necessary and the existing evidence would be taken into account.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Applicant’s costs application withdrawn – Respondent’s costs application pressed – Application for costs on indemnity basis – Consideration of relevant costs principles under s 117 of the then Act – Respondent’s costs application refused – Where the Applicant sought costs for the costs hearing – Where the Court is satisfied to make a costs order – Where the Court declines to order costs on an indemnity basis – Costs ordered at scale against Respondent due to refusal of reasonable offer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – matter listed for final hearing – where the husband did not file a trial affidavit in accordance with the trial directions – where the wife submitted that the matter proceed on an undefended basis – where the wife’s application for an undefended hearing was dismissed – where the Court granted leave to the husband to rely upon previous affidavits filed in the proceedings – where the husband’s oral application for an adjournment of the final hearing was dismissed – where the parties were ordered to proceed with the final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – Where the parties own real and other property in Australia and China – Where the husband commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for property settlement approaching three years ago – Where the proceedings in this forum have progressed towards trial – Where the husband has recently commenced proceedings in China to divide the property of the parties located in that country – Where the wife seeks an anti-suit injunction to prevent the husband from progressing the proceedings in China – Where the husband does not contend that Australia is a “clearly inappropriate forum” for determination of property division proceedings and does not seek a stay of the local proceedings pending final determination of the proceedings in China – Where the husband contends that each proceeding ought to run parallel to ensure all assets owned by the parties both overseas and in Australia are dealt with – Discussion of principles applicable to anti-suit injunctions restraining the pursuit of litigation in foreign jurisdictions on the same asset pool – Orders made restraining the husband from prosecuting the proceedings in China.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – PROPERTY – No dispute a property owned by a corporate entity controlled by the parties should be sold – Where there were court orders to sell at a specific listing price with intermittent price reviews and possible price reductions if unsold – Where attempts to sell at the specified listed price were unsuccessful and no cooperative price reviews occurred – Evidence indicating interest from buyers at lower price – Wife sought orders for listing at reduced sale price and scheduled price reductions – Where the Court accepts the wife’s proposal may help achieve sale – Orders made as proposed by the wife.

INTERIM – Interlocutory injunctions – Where wife seeks mandatory injunction under s 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for husband to pay family trust $4,000,000 – Where wife claims husband unilaterally removed $8,200,000 of liquidated investment funds from the property pool – Where about half of the funds were transferred to an offset account jointly controlled by the husband and a third party not joined to proceedings – Discussion of principles applying to interlocutory mandatory and prohibitory injunctions – Consideration of power in s 114 to make orders affecting third parties – No dispute wife has prima facie entitlement in a matrimonial cause to property alteration under s 79 – Where husband disclosed where funds were applied – Where husband asserted funds had not been materially dissipated but converted into choses in action as loans – Where the Court is satisfied the property pool was partially eroded by husband’s transfer of funds to within the control of the third party – Where the Court is satisfied the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction of some amount – Order for the husband to pay $1,500,000 to family trust account – Order restraining parties from causing deduction of the family trust account without consent.

FAMILY LAW –  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay Application – where the husband sought that interim orders to be stayed or set aside – where the wife and the second respondent oppose the making of those orders - where the period for filing an appeal has passed – husband’s application for a Stay dismissed – application for an Order under section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) granted – injunction pursuant to section 114(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) restraining the husband from threatening or intimidating the wife – liberty to apply granted to the Second Respondent.  

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Ex-tempore reasons – Subpoena Objection – Where the respondent husband issued a suite of subpoenas to the wife’s medical practitioners – Where Notices of Objection were filed on behalf of the wife and her treating psychiatrist – Where each of the subpoenas issued by the respondent was struck out – Where the wife seeks costs on the basis that the respondent was wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – Submissions as to parties’ financial circumstances – Consideration of s114UB(3) factors – Costs ordered against the respondent.

FAMILY LAW – forum dispute – where applicant contends Australia is most appropriate forum to determine property dispute and seeks declaration to that effect– where respondent contends New Zealand most appropriate forum and seeks Australian process be stayed – stay application dismissed – restraint sought against respondent dealing with property interest in New Zealand granted – no declaration about forum made

FAMILY LAW – Final Parenting – where multiple risk factors including family violence, substance abuse, father’s criminality and impulsivity, where both parties have mental health diagnoses – where father continues to use medicinal marijuana - where mother alleges child exposed to family violence and was shaken as a baby – where mother a vulnerable person - where restraints made as to the conduct of both parties – where section 64D(2) order made - order for identification contact only. 

FAMILY LAW – SURROGACY – Where the child is born through commercial surrogacy – Where the parents entered into the surrogacy agreement overseas – Where the child was artificially conceived – Where the father provided the genetic material for the child to be conceived – Where the child is an Australian citizen – PARENTING – Where there is a high conflict co-parenting relationship – Where there are some safety risks for the child in the father’s household – Where it is not in the child’s best interest to live in an equal time arrangement with each parent – Where the mother’s mental health is stable – Where the mother displays greater insight into the child’s needs – Where the father has provided misleading information about his mental health – Where the father has failed in his duty of disclosure – Where it is in the best interest of the child to live in the primary care of the mother – Where the child benefits from his relationship with the father – Where it is in the bests interests of the child to spend regular time with the father, including overnight time– DECISION MAKING – RESTRAINTS – PASSPORTS AND OVERSEAS TRAVEL.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – one child (now aged 12) – high conflict between parents – each allege family violence by the other but neither asserts it is unsafe for child to spend time with the other – mother relocated with child from Queensland to Victoria in February 2023, without father’s knowledge – each parent seeks child live with them (mother in Victoria, father in Queensland) and spend time with the other parent – evaluation of proposals – order for joint decision-making as agreed – order for child to live with mother and to spend time with father found to be in child’s best interests, notwithstanding mother’s past failure to support child’s relationship with father – order for parents to accompany child when travelling interstate if child refuses to travel unaccompanied, to support time with father – consideration of other orders sought by parties, some ultimately agreed and some in dispute.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – financial and non-financial contributions – just and equitable – global approach – tax debt – beneficiary of a trust – future financial needs.