Judgments

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Where the majority of issues have been settled by consent – Where the remaining issues requiring determination are narrow –Where it is determined the father is not a flight risk – Where a Family Law Watchlist order will not be made – Where the father will not be required to pay a security bond – Where a limit on overseas travel will not be imposed – Where there will not be a restriction on holidaying in or transiting through non-Hague Convention countries – Where once the child turns 12 she will be able to be accompanied overseas with the persons nominated by the father – Where an order is made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by husband for parenting orders – Where the husband seeks primary care of the children but ultimately concedes in final addresses sole parental responsibility in the wife and that the children live primarily with the wife – Allegations of family violence – Orders that there be time on a staged basis for the children with the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application by husband for a property settlement – Consideration of s 79(5) factors – Property pool issues – Orders that property be distributed as to 62.5 per cent to the wife and 37.5 per cent to the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to set aside a Notice to Produce – Where the respondent in the substantive proceeding contended that the form of the Notice to Produce was non-compliant and that one item was oppressive – Where the applicant in the substantive proceeding sought to dismiss the application and for the respondent to forthwith produce the items detailed in the Notice to Produce – Where the item of the Notice to Produce which was contended to be oppressive is set aside – Where the application to set aside the Notice to Produce on the grounds of asserted non-compliance is dismissed – Where two of the items to be produced were contended to be the subject of legal professional privilege – Where the argument of the claim of waiver of legal professional privilege over those items is to be heard by another judge of this Court.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Application for leave to commence proceedings for adoption – Where the child’s biological father is deceased – Where leave is granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks sole responsibility for long term decision making for a six year old child and no time with the father – Where the father initially sought shared decision making responsibility and five nights a fortnight with the child –Where in final submissions without notice to the other parties, the father proposed as an alternative position weekly supervised time with the child and joint decision making responsibility – Where the mother makes serious allegations of family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father and contends he poses an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the father conceded perpetrating some forms of family violence but also contended the mother committed family violence, notwithstanding she should retain primary care of the child – Where the father has failed to demonstrate any insight into his behaviour or successfully ameliorate his negative attitude towards the mother – Where it is found the father poses an unacceptable risk if the child spends unsupervised time with the father – Consideration of whether no time or long term supervision is warranted – Consideration of ancillary orders including overseas travel for the child to the mother’s country of origin and whether the child should be placed on the watchlist – Held the child should not be placed on the watchlist and the child should be permitted to travel internationally with his mother.

EVIDENCE – Where the father’s counsel flagged admissibility issues for the recordings under s 135 and s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the Surveillance Devices Act – Where the objection was not formally pressed by the father’s counsel.

PROCEDURAL – Where the mother seeks a vexatious or harmful proceedings order – In the circumstances the father is to spend limited time with the child and have little contact with the mother – Where the mother’s submissions do not canvass the provisions required under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – No vexatious proceedings order or harmful proceeding order be made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the child has not met the father and does not have a relationship with him – Where the child has a number of health and developmental issues – Where the father has engaged in serious family violence towards the mother – Orders made for the child to have no contact or communication with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parenting and de facto property proceedings were subject to a final hearing – Where the Respondent and the parties’ children tragically passed away after the proceedings were reserved for judgment – Where the finalisation of the property proceedings has been delayed due to matters relating to the deceased’s entitlement to superannuation and death benefit claim.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the Applicant seeks a declaration that her marriage to the Respondent is a nullity – Where the Respondent submits to any order the Court may make – Declaration by the Court that the marriage is null and void – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Magellan List – Where parents have entered into consent orders that significantly narrowed the issues at trial – Where mother seeks sole decision making responsibility – Where father seeks joint decision making responsibility with regard to the child's health– Where parents have ineffective communication– Order made for the mother to exercise sole decision making responsibility on the proviso that she notify the father and consider his input regarding any major long-term decisions – Dispute about the child's spend time arrangements with the father post-family therapy – Order made for graduating time with the father, beginning with supervised handovers – Where father contends that the mother is a flight risk based on her application for a foreign passport for the child, without the father’s knowledge – Where the mother not informing the father of this application is best explained by their general communication difficulties– Where the child has many relatives overseas – Where the mother owns property and has employment in Australia – Held the mother is not a flight risk – Held the child should not leave Australia in the immediate future in order to effectively reintroduce time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for final property settlement orders – Where the wife contends the husband has diluted his interests in various corporate entities to remove assets from the available pool – Claims pursuant to s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the accounts of the various corporate entities are in evidence but cannot be relied upon – Where the husband reduced his shareholdings but retained an entitlement to withdraw company funds – Where there is no evidence as to the ability to wind back the husband’s use of the funds – Where the s 106B claim fails – Balance sheet items – Contributions – Where the husband made greater initial contributions – Where the husband made greater financial contributions during the relationship – Where the wife had and continues to have the care of the children – Consideration of non-disclosure – Where the husband has received significant funds from the various corporate entities – Orders to the effect the wife receives 72 per cent of the available assets.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the respondent was already married when he married the applicant – Where the first marriage was solemnised overseas – Invalid divorce certificate from overseas - Where a decree of nullity granted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children are living with the Father – Where the children were spending supervised time with the Mother – Where interim orders were made during the final hearing for the children to commence spending unsupervised time with the Mother – Where the Mother subsequently made allegations of sexual abuse of the children by the Father and retained the children – Where evidence in the parenting proceedings was reopened – Where adverse credibility findings are made against the Mother – Where the Mother has shown disregard for Court orders, including in relation to proceedings concerning her child from a previous relationship – Where each parent makes allegations of family violence against the other – Where the Father has, at times, acted in a “high-handed” way towards the Mother but has not engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour –Where there is a conglomeration of adverse factors for the children in the care of the Mother – Where the children are not safe from emotional and psychological harm in the care of the Mother – Where there is an unacceptable risk to the children arising from the Mother’s relationships with men – Where the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer sought no time orders with respect to the Mother – Where the Mother sought that the children live with her and spend time with the Father –Where long-term supervision not in children’s best interests – Where orders made for the children to spend no time with the Mother – Where orders are made enabling the Mother to send cards and presents to the children.

PROPERTY – Where evidence was unsatisfactory – Where the property pool is small – Where a “two pool” approach adopted –Where the Husband’s contributions exceed the Wife’s – Where there should be a significant s 75(2) adjustment by reason of the Husband’s sole care of the children – Where the Husband should have the opportunity to retain the former matrimonial home –Where the Wife should receive 25 per cent of the non-superannuation pool ––Where orders made for sale of the former matrimonial home in the event the Husband is unable to make the payment – Where superannuation splitting orders made such that the Wife should receive 35 per cent of the superannuation pool.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interest of the child – Family violence perpetrated by the father – Order for no time spending.

PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Dispute between husband and wife – Intervener is the husband’s mother – Declaration of constructive trust in favour of intervener – Wife to retain 100% assets.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the parties underwent divorce proceedings and a property settlement in China – Where the parties’ divorce proceedings in China did not deal with real property in Australia – Where the applicant has continued to litigate against the respondent extensively in China – Where there are Chinese proceedings remaining on foot – Where the applicant filed these proceedings seeking discovery from the wife in June 2023 – Where the respondent alleges there was an abuse of process at the time of the commencement of the proceedings – Where the Court finds the applicant instituted the proceedings for an improper purpose – Where the respondent has established that the applicant engaged in an abuse of process – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the Court finds that the mother has physically abused the child and caused him serious psychological harm – Where the child is heavily influenced by his father’s views – Where the father is the unchallenged residential parent – Consideration of long-term supervision.

RELOCATION – Where the father seeks to relocate with the child from the western suburbs of the City of Sydney to the City of Perth– Where the mother opposes relocation – Findings that relocation is not in the child’s best interests – Relocation not permitted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Parenting – Where the children have lived with the father since early 2023 – Where the children have spent four nights per fortnight with the mother since late 2023 – Where it is uncontroversial one party must have sole decision-making authority for the children – Parties in dispute about how much time the children should either live or spend with the mother during school terms – Where the children want to spend more time with the mother – Where the children are liable to be influenced by their perceptions of the mother’s needs – Where the views of the children are not given decisive weight because of their age and immaturity – Where it is better to avoid any fundamental change to the children’s routine – Where the father has a superior capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs – Ordered the children continue living primarily with the father and he have sole decision-making authority – Parents retain parental responsibility - Children spend five contiguous nights per fortnight with the mother – School holidays to be shared equivalently – 

Property – Where the parties mistakenly sought a declaration of their de facto relationship – Where is it just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where most of the family wealth was accumulated by the father before the children were born – Where the parties’ contributions were largely equivalent between the birth of the children and separation – Where the father’s contributions to the care and welfare of the children outstripped those of the mother since separation – Contribution entitlement assessed as 67/33 – Where the husband became indebted to his corporation in order to pay the wife $800,000 in compliance with an interim property order – Where the husband will incur a tax debt in repaying the loan over the next seven years – Where the prospective tax debt represents about four per cent of the parties’ net property – Adjustment of three per cent in the favour of the father in circumstances where his financial circumstances could change for the better or he is able to pay the loan sooner – Where the parties agreed the final orders should comprise a cash component and a sum split from the father’s superannuation – Husband to receive 70 per cent of the parties’ property and the wife 30 per cent - Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Adjournment of trial – Where the Court finds that each parent represents a risk to the children – Where the Court invites the Minister for Communities and Justice to intervene in the proceedings.

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

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

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where final orders made – Where enforcement orders made – Where wife seeks to stay the enforcement of the final orders pending the outcome of her s 79A application –Where husband seeks the fruits of litigation – Whether s 79A application will be rendered nugatory if enforcement not stayed – Where balance of convenience lies – Application dismissed.

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

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

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – Forum non conveniens – Where the husband filed a divorce application in Australia – Where the wife seeks the divorce application be dismissed – Where both parties born in India – Where parties married and separated in Australia – Where parties are Australian citizens and continue to reside here – Common ground that Court’s s 39 jurisdiction enlivened and marriage broken down irretrievably per s 48 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where wife’s petition to divorce in India dismissed by that court for a lack of territorial jurisdiction – Australia not a clearly inappropriate forum – Divorce granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the second and third respondents each filed an Application for Review against orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Where the Senior Judicial Registrar transferred the matter to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) – Whether a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has jurisdiction to determine a review of a decision of a registrar exercising powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – Consideration of ss 100 and 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and Imtiaz & Vadim [2025] FedCFamC1F 744 – Request made to the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) transfer the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and that the Applications for Review be listed for hearing before a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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