Includes appeals from family law decisions made by federal magistrates (may be heard by a single Family Court judge or by the Full Court) and from decisions of single judges in the Family Court (heard by three or more judges).
Recent judgments of the Family Court of Australia are published on this website for two months only. All judgments from 2007 onwards and selected judgments from 1998-2006 are published permanently on the AustLII web site.
Judgments published on this website are anonymised by substituting pseudonyms for party names to protect the identity of parties.
Note: Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish or distribute a report of a case or part of a case, including information contained in a Judgment, which identifies parties, related or associated persons, witnesses or others involved in the case. A breach of the section is a criminal offence. The section also sets out certain limited defences to criminal liability. An example is where the Court has expressly authorised the publication.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION PROCEEDINGS – Children – Parenting orders – Procedural fairness – where the judge varied parenting orders limiting the scope of the father’s contact with the school – where the judge had the power under s 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to vary the parenting orders – where there was no relevant evidence in regard to such orders and the best interests of the children – where the judge gave no notice of the orders proposed to be made – where on appeal the father claimed the judge failed to afford him procedural fairness – where the Full Court was satisfied that the judge failed to afford procedural fairness.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – WAIVER OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – Where the trial judge held a financial agreement entered into by the parties in 2007 was not binding – Where the trial judge determined that the advice given to the wife did not comply with s 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) because she had not understood the advice as her solicitor spoke a different Arabic dialect – Where the trial judge also found reference to an interpreter did not fulfil the s 90G(1)(b) requirement – Where the trial judge refused to grant the husband access to the wife’s solicitor’s file (or records) and also refused to allow the wife’s solicitor to give evidence on the basis of a finding that the wife’s claim of legal professional privilege should be upheld because she had not intentionally waived it – Where the wife had given evidence of what she had been told by her solicitor – Where, on appeal, the husband argued that the trial judge applied the wrong test for waiver of privilege – Where the Full Court found that the trial judge had applied the wrong test and held that the test is one of inconsistency with the maintenance of privilege rather than the subjective intention to maintain privilege – Where the Full Court also found that the wife’s evidence as to whether advice was given was contradictory – Where the husband also argued that the trial judge failed to take into account a relevant consideration, being the wife’s credibility – Where the Full Court also found merit in this complaint – Appeal allowed – Remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – TAXATION LIABILITY – Whether the husband’s taxation liability should be treated as a joint matrimonial liability – Where the parties’ liabilities exceeded their available assets – Where half of the taxation liability accrued prior to separation – Where the wife was unaware the husband had not paid tax due – Where husband previously gave evidence he was making payments towards tax – Where there were compelling reasons to leave the husband solely liable for tax debt – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SUPERANNUATION – Whether a superannuation splitting order should have been made – Where the wife would receive little from the sale proceeds of the properties – Where the husband’s income was greater than the wife’s – Where to reduce the value of the wife’s superannuation because of the magnitude of the husband’s taxation debt would be inconsistent with finding that the husband should be solely responsible for the debt – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Whether the wife established entitlement to spousal maintenance – Where it is reasonable for the wife to seek only part time work when she has the primary care of the parties’ two children – Where adequate reasons were provided to support a finding that the husband had the capacity to pay – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where husband wholly unsuccessful – Husband to pay wife’s costs.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – where subpoenaed material concerning alcohol use and mental health issues of the mother was not tendered at an urgent interim parenting hearing, but was the subject of an application to adduce further evidence at the hearing of the appeal to show that the trial judge’s orders were erroneous – where counsel for the father relied on  of CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 submitting that even if there is no substance in the grounds of appeal, the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the further evidence demonstrates that the orders were erroneous – where counsel for the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the application on the grounds that the subpoenaed material should have been tendered at the hearing or as a further evidence application at first instance – where it was found that there is no substance in any of the grounds of the appeal, but the appeal had to succeed on the further evidence application – where it would have been more appropriate had the parties made a further application at first instance particularly as they had been invited to do so by the trial judge – where it was held on appeal relying on  of CDJ v VAJ that the discretion to admit further evidence can be exercised if it is required to protect the children’s best interests and their safety, even though it might not produce a different outcome to the orders appealed – appeal allowed – matter remitted for re-hearing.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Relocation – Where the mother relocated with the child interstate – Where the father had no relationship with the child at the time of relocation – Where the mother has other children in her care – Where the trial judge made interim orders requiring the mother to return to the father’s state of residence with the child – Where a meaningful relationship with the father is in the child’s best interests – Where returning to the father’s state of residence would facilitate a meaningful relationship between the father and the child – Whether the trial judge followed the proper approach in determining what time the child would spend with the father – Whether the trial judge applied the proper approach in determining the issue of relocation at an interim hearing – Whether the mother was afforded procedural fairness – Whether the trial judge had regard to the reasonable practicability of relocation – Where the mother adduced no evidence as to reasonable practicability before the trial judge – Whether the trial judge erred in the exercise of discretion – Whether the trial judge provided proper reasons for decision – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for security for costs – Where the husband appeals against the trial judge’s order to pay the wife $20,000 as security for her costs in property proceedings brought by the husband pursuant to s 79A – Where the respondent wife conceded that the appeal should be allowed – Where the matter is remitted for re-hearing in the Federal Circuit Court – Where both parties seek cost certificates pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – Certificates ordered – Appeal allowed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Application to review decision of Appeals Registrar to list an application for hearing at the same time as the appeals to which that application relates – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Where the mother unilaterally relocated the children to Brisbane from Perth – Where the father appealed an interim order allowing the children to remain in Brisbane pending trial – The trial Magistrate considered the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with the father – The trial Magistrate did not err in finding that the father could afford to travel to Brisbane occasionally – The trial Magistrate did not err in assessing the mother’s financial position – Appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs, but not on an indemnity basis.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Subpoenas – Where appellants seek leave to appeal against orders refusing to set aside subpoenas – Where the subpoenas to produce documents are in relation to the wife’s deceased father’s will and estate – Where the appellants argue that the subpoenas were oppressive and constituted a “fishing” exercise – Where the appellants argue that the production of the documents was not necessary – Whether service of an affidavit disclosing part of the contents of the documents rendered production unnecessary – Where the appellants argue the documents required under subpoena are subject to client legal privilege, confidential and inadmissible in these proceedings – Where there is an injunction in place to protect the privacy of the parties and third parties – Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where leave to appeal is refused.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL - APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL - Where the appellant is deceased - Where the respondent seeks that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to r 22.45 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) - Where there is no interested party, including the Public Trustee, who wishes to proceed with the appeal - Where no application to substitute a legal personal representative has been made pursuant to r 6.15 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) - Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL - COSTS - Where the respondent sought his costs of the appeal - Where it is not possible to make an order for costs as there is no party or having established an Estate of the deceased appellant - No order for costs made.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the appellant father sought a review of a child support departure determination and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal increased his taxable income for child support purposes – Where the father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision – The primary judge did not err in finding that the Tribunal did not err in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – The primary judge did not err in finding that the Tribunal did not err in law by adjusting the father’s taxable income – No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL – where the appeal was deemed abandoned – where the applicant sought to appeal final orders preventing her from spending any time with the child – where the applicant failed to file the appeal books by the due date – where there was confusion as to the date upon which the appeal books were due to be filed – where the applicant promptly filed the application for reinstatement – where at an interlocutory stage it could not be said that the appeal was without merit – appeal reinstated.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for expedition of appeal – Where the husband is significantly in arrears in relation to spousal and child maintenance orders – Where an application for the issue of an enforcement warrant seeking seizure and sale of property was refused – Where in contravention of the orders of the trial judge the husband is not paying the children’s school fees – Where the wife alleges she cannot afford to pay the school fees – Where the children may be removed from the school if fees are not paid while the parties are waiting for a final determination of proceedings – Expedition ordered.
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Oral application for leave to amend grounds of appeal – Leave granted.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where the trial judge adopted a global approach to the assessment of the parties’ contributions to property – Where the husband received an inheritance shortly before separation – Whether the trial judge gave proper consideration to the introduction of the husband’s inheritance – Where the parties made significant improvements to the inherited property – Where the husband failed to make proper financial disclosure – Whether the non-disclosure was to such an extent that the court was unable to determine the nature and extent of the husband’s assets and financial resources – Whether the trial judge was entitled to consider the relevance of the husband’s non-disclosure in a consideration under s 75(2) factors rather than in considering contributions under 79(4) – Where the trial judge was entitled to take the husband’s failure to disclose into account in determining s 75(2) factors – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant seeks orders to reopen the case in the appeal – Where the appellant seeks to adduce further evidence – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for expedition of appeal – Where the appeal is against interlocutory orders – Where one party is involved in ongoing litigation which will affect the assets of the parties – Where proceedings for property settlement cannot proceed until other litigation is completed – Where the husband has significant ongoing legal expenses – Where there is dispute between the parties as to the total value of their assets – Where the wife alleges that the trial judge’s orders would dissipate the pool of assets available for division and thereby frustrate her entitlement to them – Where the wife claims that expedition is necessary to prevent the husband depleting the assets available for division – Where the wife argues that further distributions of funds to the husband will further deplete her entitlement – Application granted – Appeal expedited.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – Parenting orders – Where the appeal does not raise any question of general principle – Where findings available - Where history of non-compliance with orders and rules warrants a costs order being made – Appeal dismissed
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – NOTICE OF APPEAL – DIVORCE ORDER - FORUM – Where the husband seeks that a divorce order be set aside on the basis of Australia being an inappropriate forum – Where many of the grounds of appeal are either not grounds of appeal or not proper grounds of appeal – Where some of the grounds of appeal read generously and at their highest can be treated as challenging the exercise of discretion by the trial judge – Where the trial judge was cognisant of the factors that needed to be addressed – Where the trial judge appropriately took into account the stage the proceedings had reached in each forum – Where there was no justification to suggest that the trial judge did anything other than he was required to in accordance with the law – Where the trial judge was not “plainly wrong” in the exercise of his discretion – Where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the husband seeks to admit further evidence – Where the husband has not demonstrated how the updating evidence would render “erroneous” the orders under appeal or how it would have “produced a different result if it had been available at the trial” – Where the trial judge was well aware of the overseas proceedings and the husband’s intention to pursue those proceedings regardless – Where there is no basis to receive the further evidence – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – NOTICE OF APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order for costs – Where there are clear circumstances justifying an order for costs in the wife’s favour – Husband to pay the wife’s costs of the appeal as assessed in default of agreement.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – ENFORCEMENT – JURISDICTION – Where on appeal the primary judge discharged orders for enforcement made by an acting Family Law Magistrate of Western Australia and made orders requiring the sale of two properties and discharging arrears of spouse maintenance – Where the appellant asserts that the primary judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the acting Family Law Magistrate – Where the appellant asserts that pursuant to the transitional provision in item 27 of Schedule 1 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Family Law) Act 2006 (Cth) which amended ss 94AAA and 96 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the amendments to the appeal process apply in this case – Where the appeal raises important questions and leave to appeal should be granted – Where the primary judge addressed the question of the interpretation of the transitional provision in the context of determining an application for a stay – Where the Full Court held that the primary judge’s interpretation was accurate and the transitional provision does not apply the amendments in this case – Where the word “proceedings” as appears in the transitional provision encompasses everything done in litigation relating to a specific matrimonial cause from the time jurisdiction of the Court is invoked until the time judgment is enforced or fully performed – Where there is no merit in this ground of appeal – Where the primary judge did not err in ordering the appellant to sell the two properties owned jointly by the appellant and the second respondent pursuant to s 90AF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge did not err in restraining the appellant until further order from disposing of her share of the proceeds of sale of either of the said properties – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the appellant seeks an extension of time to file a “Re-Amended” Notice of appeal – Where the application is opposed – Where there is no explanation for the failure to file a Notice of Appeal within the time period provided in the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where there is no material supporting the further proposed grounds of appeal – Where the merits of the further proposed grounds of appeal cannot be assessed or considered – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the first respondent sought an order for costs – Where the appellant opposed an order for costs – Where the question on appeal was complex – No order for costs made.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL – FORUM – CHILDREN – Where the respondent wife sought parenting and financial orders – Where the appellant husband sought that the proceedings be permanently stayed on the basis of Australia being an inappropriate forum – Where the trial judge only considered the issue of forum in relation to the parenting proceedings and not the entirety of the proceedings – Where the trial judge found that it was in the best interests of the children for the parenting proceedings to be heard and determined in Australia – Where the trial judge made parenting orders and transferred the balance of the proceedings to the Family Court of Australia – Where the trial judge’s conclusion as to forum depended on the capacity of the respondent wife and the children to obtain visas to remain in Australia – Where the evidence of the expert witnesses differed as to whether the respondent wife and the children would be successful in obtaining visas enabling them to stay in Australia until the children completed their secondary education – Where the trial judge made no finding as to the expert evidence to be preferred – Where there was no basis on which the trial judge could find that it was possible for the respondent wife and children to remain in Australia until they completed their secondary education – Where accordingly the conclusion of the trial judge as to forum must be tainted and considered unsafe – Where as a result the trial judge’s conclusions as to the parenting orders are undermined – Where the trial judge did not err in splitting the forum question – Where it was unnecessary to address the remaining grounds of appeal – Appeal allowed – Remitted for rehearing.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATIONS IN AN APPEAL – ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where the appellant husband and the respondent wife both sought to adduce further evidence on the appeal – Where the evidence is controversial – Where given the outcome of the appeal the more appropriate course is for this evidence to be adduced at the rehearing – Applications dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appellant husband sought an order for costs – Where the respondent wife opposed an order for costs – Where the parties should bear their own costs – Costs certificates issued for the appeal and for the rehearing.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Where leave is sought to appeal against interlocutory orders – Where the applicant is an undischarged bankrupt – Where multiple parties are sought to be joined – Where the applicant alleges additional parties required for disputed property ownership claims – Where the applicant alleges denial of procedural fairness – Where the applicant alleges bias on the part of the trial judge – Whether leave should be granted – Where the court found no merit for leave – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Hearing for dismissal for want of prosecution – Notice from the Registrar – Where the mother filed the appeal books and has since failed to attend procedural hearings or respond to letters from the Appeals Registry – Where the mother was informed that the appeal was listed for dismissal pursuant to the Rules and did not appear – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXPEDITION – Where the mother seeks to expedite an appeal against interim parenting orders – Whether a case should be given priority to the detriment of other cases – Where the nature of the appeal does not justify priority to the detriment of other cases – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – COSTS – Where the applicant sought to discharge, stay or quantify the amount of costs he is required to pay pursuant to costs order – Where the effect of the application is to appeal against previous order – Where the primary application is incompetent – Where there existed no circumstance which would warrant varying the order – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Where the court has before it an application to reinstate an appeal – Where the appellant indicated that she wished to adjourn the hearing of her application – Where the respondent only provided qualified consent to the adjournment on the ground that a medical certificate needed to be provided to show why the appellant could not prosecute her appeal and application – Where the appellant has in the past failed to appear at scheduled hearings – Where the gravity of the subject matter of the hearing requires that the adjournment be granted – Application adjourned.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – UNDEFENDED HEARING – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – Where the husband appeals against orders dismissing his application for property settlement and giving leave to the wife to proceed on an undefended basis – Where the husband also appeals the orders for property settlement that were subsequently made – Where the gravamen of the husband’s complaint on appeal was that the trial judge failed to accord him procedural fairness by dismissing his application for property settlement and excluding him from the proceedings which were part-heard – Where the Full Court found that at the point the husband’s application was dismissed he had material before the court and had not failed to comply with any relevant procedural orders – Where the Full Court held that there had been a denial of procedural fairness – Where the Full Court further held that a rehearing would be likely to provide a more favourable result to the husband – Appeal allowed – Remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application to appoint case guardian – Where husband is a person with a disability – Where case guardian originally restrained from contacting wife – Where case guardian appointment restricted to purpose of the appeal and may only communicate in the prescribed manner – Application granted – No order for costs.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – where the trial Judge allowed the mother to take the children to China for a two month visit – where the father did not establish an error on the part of the trial Judge when exercising his discretion to allow the children to go to China – no order for costs – appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Application for expedition – Where the father seeks to appeal an order allowing the mother to relocate the children – Where the children have been subject to extensive litigation – Where the mother opposes expedition – Whether the factors referred to in r12.10A of the Family Law Rules 2004 would support an application to expedite in this instance – Where the father filed his application without delay – Where any financial prejudice to the mother is outweighed by other factors – Where the advantage of an order for expedition is that it will allow the children to live in permanently settled living arrangements – Application for expedition granted.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL – Where Notice of Discontinuance was filed by the appellant’s solicitor – Where the father has lodged a complaint that the solicitor acted without instruction when he did so – Where the Family Law Rules do not provide for a discontinued appeal to be reinstated – Where the unusual circumstances of this case warrant the application for reinstatement to be treated as an application to extend time to file an appeal – Where the discretion to extend time is given for the sole purpose of enabling the court to do justice between the parties – Where it would cause a great injustice to not allow a party to pursue an appeal that has been wrongly discontinued – Application granted.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RECOVERY ORDER – Where the trial judge made interim orders requiring the return of the child from the mother in Queensland to the father in the Northern Territory after the mother unilaterally relocated with the child – Where the mother asserted errors by the trial judge in the assessment of family violence, the child’s relationship with the mother, cultural issues and failing to order a family report – Where the primary issue was the safety of the child – Where the trial judge considered all matters – No merit in any of the grounds of appeal – Where the next hearing date was proximate – Where there was no utility in the orders that could be made even if the grounds had merit – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – Where the applicant seeks to reinstate the appeal previously filed against orders made by Cronin J on 28 February 2012 – Where that appeal was deemed abandoned pursuant to r 22.21 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the fundamental issue is whether reinstatement of the appeal is necessary to enable the court to do justice between the parties – Where the applicant provides no explanation of the failure to comply with the order for the filing of the appeal books and no plausible explanation for the delay in filing an application until 21 March 2014 – Where the Notice of Appeal is deficient namely, the applicant failed to apply for leave to appeal and there is no proper ground of appeal – Where the application lacks bona fides – Where there is an obvious prejudice to the respondent in granting the application – Where the interests of justice demand that the application be refused – Application dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – COSTS – Where in the event that either party seeks costs r 22.53 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) applies.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL – CONTRAVENTION – Where the trial judge found that the appellant mother contravened orders without reasonable excuse – Where the respondent father was charged with numerous serious criminal offences in relation to the appellant mother and the parties’ child – Where part-way through the criminal trial the respondent father pleaded guilty to some of the charges but was released on bail and was not sentenced until some time later – Where the trial judge found that the commencement of the criminal trial and the guilty plea did not change the “underlying family dynamic” and did not provide reasonable grounds for contravening the orders – Where the trial judge erred as there was a palpable change in the family dynamic by the commencement of the criminal trial, with lengthy cross-examination of the appellant mother, the father pleading guilty thereafter, and the delay until his sentence – Where the trial judge erred in finding that supervised time by the paternal grandmother would have allayed the appellant mother’s fears of the respondent father spending time with the child – Where the trial judge erred in relying upon notations on the court file which were not on the sealed copies of the order provided to the parties – Where the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant mother was not “bullied” into entering into consent orders as this finding was not open on the evidence – Where the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant mother had joined in an agreement for the child to spend time with the respondent father supervised by the paternal grandmother – Where the trial judge erred in finding that the statements of a police officer to the mother that she not provide her contact details to the respondent father did not establish a reasonable excuse to contravene the order – Where there is no merit in the complaint that the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant mother had failed to arrange an appointment for an assessment at a contact centre without reasonable excuse – Where there is no merit in the complaint that the trial judge erred in finding that that contravention manifested serious disregard of the order and in failing to consider subsequent events on sentencing – Appeal allowed in part.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where neither the appellant mother nor the respondent father sought costs orders, but the appellant mother sought a costs certificate pursuant to the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) – Where no order for costs should be made – Where the appeal was allowed in part on a question of law – Costs certificate ordered for the appellant mother.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL OF INTERIM JUDGMENT – CHILDREN – Where the father appeals an interim judgment – Where trial judge made orders based on least contested evidence available to his Honour – Where trial judge failed to expressly consider the legislative wording in s 60CC – Where trial reasons were brief – Whether trial judge properly observed the principles applicable to interim proceedings – Whether trial judge properly observed the principles applicable to the s 61DA presumption – Where the court held that interim proceedings do not obviate the need to consider s 60CC considerations and provide adequate reasons – Where the court held that the trial judge’s reasons implicitly and briefly considered the interests of the child and the evidence before the court – Where the court held that s 65DAA(6) applied to a shared parenting agreement made by consent – Appeal dismissed – General observations on the exigencies of busy trial lists and trial judges’ duties.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife sought interim spousal maintenance of $1,000 per week and her application was dismissed – Where the husband has a high income and the wife lives on social security and charity – The magistrate erred in finding the wife had worked full-time after the separation – The magistrate erred in finding that the wife had capacity to work despite medical evidence indicating she was suffering from depression – Merit found in other complaints – Application for leave to appeal allowed and appeal allowed in relation to this issue – Matter remitted for rehearing – Costs certificates granted for the appeal and rehearing.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife sought an interim lump sum payment of $50,000 for her legal costs or a “dollar for dollar” order in the alternative and her application was dismissed – The magistrate was correct in placing weight on the husband’s offer to assist the wife to obtain a loan secured over the unencumbered matrimonial home to cover her legal fees – Application for leave to appeal refused.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL – DECLARATON OF DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the trial judge found that the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the appellant submits that the trial judge’s findings were erroneous and not open on the evidence – Where the evidence between the parties was largely disparate – Consideration of the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – Where the appellant submits that the adverse credit findings made by the trial judge were not reasonably open – Where the assessment of credit of the parties was open to the trial judge – Where the appellant asserts the trial judge erred in failing to draw a Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 inference – Where the trial judge referred to ample corroborative evidence in relation to the findings made – Where no error demonstrated – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.
FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the appeal was wholly unsuccessful – Where the appellant conceded costs if the appeal failed – Appellant pay respondent’s costs of the appeal.