Please enter your search query in the form below to search judgments of the Family Court of Australia

using
Number of results per page:
Austlii logo

Judgments search is powered by Austlii


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.

  • Khalif & Khalif and Anor (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 73

    12 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – Stay – Application by the 2nd Respondent to stay orders made.

    FAMILY LAW –Apprehended Bias – Application by the 1st respondent that the Judge recuse himself from hearing outstanding applications.

  • Revie & Thomas [2020] FamCA 67

    11 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Where the mother seeks that she have sole parental responsibility, the child live with her and spend alternate weekends with the father – Where the father seeks that the child live with him in J Town and spend fortnightly time with the mother, supervised at a contact centre – Where the father alleges that the child is at risk of physical, psychological or sexual harm in the mother’s household – Where the father, at a final hearing in 2014, made similar allegations against the mother and these were not accepted by the trial judge – Where the father makes fresh allegations – Where the evidence does not support a finding that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the father has caused the child to be repeatedly interviewed by the police and child safety and exposed the child to his fixed views about the mother and has caused the child emotional harm – Where the risk of future harm posed by the father can be ameliorated through restraints and the father undertaking therapy – Where the mother will have sole parental responsibility and the child will live with her and spend alternate weekends and half school holidays with the father.

  • Fenrich & Safor [2020] FamCA 29

    29 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – final parenting orders – where the operation of previous final consent orders gave rise to issues of interpretation inflaming the intractable conflict between the parents – where the children’s time with the father is subject to the father’s availability under a work roster – where the Court prescribes periods of time subject to the father’s availability.

  • Peers & Hemsley [2020] FamCA 25

    24 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – International Relocation – Where the mother, father and children live in Australia – Where the mother seeks to relocate with the children to New Zealand – Where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose relocation – Where the mother’s application to relocate the children’s permanent place of residence is dismissed

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property Orders - Superannuation Splitting Order –husband’s superior income mandates a significant adjustment to wife’s contribution-based entitlement to property

  • Dorracott & Dorracott [2020] FamCA 23

    23 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Interim – wife seeking $27,000 per month – husband by consent orders assuming financial responsibility for mortgages and larger liabilities – amount sought by wife excessive – application refused.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Sole Use And Occupation – wife’s application in relation to a holiday home refused – husband’s application for one weekend per month granted.

    FAMILY LAW – NON-REPORTABLE THERAPY – application granted.

  • Lagioia & Rapino [2020] FamCA 11

    17 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where an application is made under s 44(3) – where the Wife sought leave to institute property proceedings out of time – where hardship is not established – application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs – where the Husband made an application to restrain the Wife’s solicitor from acting in the proceedings – where the Husband abandoned the application – where the Husband is required to pay the disbursement for counsel and two thirds of the solicitor’s fees.

  • Easom & Burhan (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 14

    15 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – INDEMNITY COSTS – unsuccessful applicant on a stay application pressed to pay wife’s costs of resisting stay application, such costs to be on an indemnity basis to be taxed in default of agreement – relevant principles examined – indemnity costs ordered.

  • Easom & Burhan [2020] FamCA 13

    15 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – respondent in the proceeding seeking to stay operation of interlocutory orders requiring him to pay $170 000 – amended notice of appeal in respect of orders appealed against 14 grounds of appeal in which alleged errors of law were raised – none raising error of law – assertion that husband who had been ordered to pay $170 000 was unable to source funds to make such a payment – husband having access to a $3 000 000 loan facility in November 2019 – assertion that loan facility terminated on 20 December 2019 and therefore assertion that husband had no capacity to pay the sum ordered – arguable notice of termination invalid and takes the form of new evidence for which leave is required before husband can rely on it – wife asserting termination of load deed a sham – held, stay application refused.

  • Mellis & Mellis [2020] FamCA 22

    14 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final Parenting – unopposed orders – family violence including threats to kill the wife and children communicated to independent third parties.

  • Rigby & Kingston [2020] FamCA 8

    14 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Orders – Where an order was made for litigation funding in the sum of $135,000 in July 2017, which has since been exhausted – Where the husband seeks further litigation funding in the sum of $418,766 – Where the wife makes an offer for a dollar for dollar order and for a lump sum payment in the sum of $10,000 – Where whether it is just and equitable to make any property settlement order at all is a fundamental issue in the substantive proceedings – Where the wife is unlikely to be able to recover monies paid to the husband if he is unsuccessful in his claim in the substantive proceedings – Where the substantive proceedings involve complex issues such that the husband would be disadvantaged if he was not legally represented – Where the Court considers it appropriate to make a dollar for dollar order and a lump sum payment of $10,000 by the wife to the husband’s solicitor’s trust account.

  • Staley & Birch (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 1029

    20 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – interim orders by consent – time spent with parties – non-compliance with court orders – potential change in residence of child

  • Halstead & Lees and Anor (No. 4) [2019] FamCA 999

    20 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Where the family consultant reports favourably on observed time between the father, the paternal grandmother and the children – Where prior to the observed time the father had not seen the children for two years – Where further observed and reportable time is proposed – Orders.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Hearing – Where the father argues that a finding made in error was a pivotal issue in making the overall determination and the matter should be reconsidered – Where the finding was made in error – Where the finding was not the pivotal factor in making the decision – No change to orders.

  • Gresham & Gresham (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 983

    20 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Stay of property orders only granted on terms.

  • Farnell & Farnell and Anor [2019] FamCA 981

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Subpoena objection – Where the children’s treating therapist objects to the production of his files – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer submits the objection should be upheld – Where the inspection of material would compromise the therapeutic relations – Where it is not in the children’s best interest for the material to be inspected – Objection upheld.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of adversarial expert – Where the father seeks the appointment of an adversarial expert – Where the criteria in Rule 15.49 of the Family Law Rules 2004 have not been met – Application dismissed – Where leave is granted to provide documents to a shadow expert.

  • Felix & Tatum [2019] FamCA 980

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Binding Financial Agreement – Where the wife seeks to preserve the remainder of the husband’s redundancy payment – Where the wife has an arguable claim – Order for $60,000 to be preserved.

  • Batkin and Anor & Bagri and Anor [2019] FamCA 979

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – commercial surrogacy – where the children were born in India as a result of a commercial surrogacy arrangement – where the first applicant is the step-father and the second applicant is the biological father – where the applicants seek parenting orders – where the respondent surrogate mother is unable to be located – where the requirements of service have been dispensed with – order that the applicants have equal shared parental responsibility – order that the children live with the applicants.

  • Watters & Fairlie [2019] FamCA 975

    18 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – Where the father seeks in his application’s that the matter be set down for trial, interim orders, a partial property settlement and an order that the wife allow him to change the nominated beneficiary under his life insurance policy – Where the wife opposes those applications – Where the father has a reasonable excuse for not filing his affidavit on time – Where there is no merit in the father’s argument that the paragraphs of his affidavit objected to by the wife should not be struck out – Where the recoverability of the judgment arising out of the sale of the parties’ property does not mean that the matter should not proceed to hearing – Where the application for a litigation funding order fails on the basis that the court has no proper basis for estimating the husband’s legal costs – Where the husband’s application for further disclosure by the wife fails on the basis there are no valuations as sought by the husband in her possession and the court accepts the wife’s claims – Where the wife’s estoppel claims are rejected – Where the husband’s application to require the wife resign as a trustee is granted – Where the husband’s application to change the nominated beneficiary under the life insurance policy fails – Where the husband’s Application for compliance with the 17 October 2018 orders fails – Where each party is obliged to advise the other of the details of their intended disbursement of the proceeds of sale of assets seven days prior to settlement.

  • Bircher & Bircher (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 991

    13 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – JUDGMENTS – Stay – Where a final parenting order was made and judgment delivered following a defended hearing – Where the mother has filed a Notice of Appeal in relation to the final order and seeks a stay of the order pending the outcome of the appeal – Where the stay is opposed by the father and the independent children’s lawyer – Where the order has been put in operation – Where the mother did not establish a proper basis for a stay – Where the application is dismissed.

  • Kehoe & Seden [2019] FamCA 989

    13 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim – Where the wife seeks a partial property settlement of $250,000 – Where the husband seeks to pay $50,000 – Where the wife has no independent resources to fund her litigation – Order made for the wife to receive $100,000 partial property settlement.

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where the husband pays the wife $3500 per month for financial support – Where the wife seeks an additional $2,600 per week – Where the wife lives overseas – Where the wife has primary care for the 17-month old child – Order for the husband to pay $1,000 per week spousal maintenance to the wife.

  • Adam & Tan [2019] FamCA 964

    13 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Contravention – Where the respondent is found to have contravened the relevant order without reasonable excuse on two occasions – Where the applications for both contraventions were petty and unwarranted – Where the remaining counts of contravention are dismissed – Where no sanction is imposed – Where the order is not varied as proposed by the applicant – Where the applicant has been at least substantially unsuccessful and must pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Contravention Applications fixed at $2,750.

  • Abalos & Halder [2019] FamCA 963

    13 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – threshold issue – where the applicant seeks a declaration pursuant to s90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as to the existence and duration of a de facto relationship – where the parties lived in premises rented and paid for by the respondent – where the applicant moved to other rented accommodation for approximately one year before returning to live with the respondent – consideration of the nature of the relationship during these periods – where it is held that the parties were in a de facto relationship during the entirety of the period from 8 February 2014 to May 2017

  • Chaddock & Bomer [2019] FamCA 973

    12 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Change of Name

  • Yalpat & Yalpat (No. 4) [2019] FamCA 967

    12 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Child spend time with the Father.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal sought.

  • McMurphy & McMurphy [2019] FamCA 947

    11 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Allegations of risk of harm – evaluation of risk both parents pose to the children – should orders be made for living arrangements of teenage children – whether an order should be made for equal shared parental responsibility or sole parental responsibility.

  • Chard & Yong (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 948

    09 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ban on Cross-Examination – s 102NA

  • Eracken & Eracken (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 942

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – application to set aside Consent Orders – where the Husband seeks a review of the Consent Orders made by the Registrar – where such a review would require an extension of time to be granted – where the Husband seeks, in the alternative, that the Consent Orders be set aside pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the Husband’s applications centre on allegations of fraud perpetrated by the parties – where an extension of time should be granted for the review of the Registrar’s decision – where the application would have been set aside pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where it is just and equitable to alter the property interests of the parties – referral to the DPP (Cth)

  • Gregg & Gregg and Ors [2019] FamCA 927

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife asserts that she and the husband have an equitable interest in a farming operation conducted by the husband’s family – Where the wife contends that the farming business was a common endeavour between the parties that justifies the court imposing a remedial constructive trust – Where the respondents seek that the wife’s claim be summarily dismissed – Whether the test under Rule 10.12 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) of “no reasonable likelihood of success” is demonstrated – Where the court is not satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood of success – Where both applications for summary dismissal fail –Where in the event summary dismissal failed, the respondents sought security for their costs – Where s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applied – Where given the parties’ financial positions, and the fact any order would stifle litigation, the court does not order security for costs – Applications in a Case dismissed

  • Emami & Emami [2019] FamCA 962

    02 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Institution of proceedings – Application by the husband for leave pursuant to s 44 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to institute property settlement proceedings against the wife “out of time” – Leave not granted – no evidence filed in accordance with Court orders

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the wife for an order for costs in her favour – Orders made that the husband pay her costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed

  • Pearce & Pearce and Anor [2019] FamCA 969

    29 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim hearing – Sale of family home prior to final hearing – Claim by third party intervenor for repayment of a purported loan – Where the former matrimonial home represents the only available asset that could satisfy the claim brought by the intervenor – Distribution of proceeds of sale – Fund established to protect claim by intervenor – Orders made to effect the sale.

  • Towns & Towns (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 887

    26 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed an application for contribution to costs by both parties – Where the mother made an initial contribution of $1,650 in July 2017 – Where the mother has sole financial responsibility for the parties’ two children – Where an order would cause the mother financial hardship and create adverse consequences for the children – Where the father’s initial contribution remains unpaid – Where the father has not provided financial disclosure – Where the Court received a Notification of Bankruptcy in relation to the father – Where the father incurred no legal expenses and pays no child support – Where the application in relation to the mother is declined – Ordered father to pay a contribution to costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

  • Tracy & Tracy [2019] FamCA 960

    21 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Where no contact between the child and the mother is in the best interests of the child.

  • Nonaka & Nonaka [2019] FamCA 920

    19 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – International Relocation – where the father seeks permission to relocate with the child to Japan – where the child has been spending supervised time with the mother – where the mother has failed to comply with drug testing orders – where the mother has failed to appear – final orders made permitting the child to relocate with the father to Japan.

  • Wu & Tsiang [2019] FamCA 988

    15 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where an Application in a Case seeking costs in the first instance was rejected for filing – Where the Application was rejected due to a delay in its filing – Where the Application against which costs were first sought was subject to an appeal – Where determination of costs at the first instance was delayed due to the appeal – Order for the Application in a Case be accepted for filing.

  • Salmon & Salmon and Ors (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 910

    24 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Interim Hearing – Where a single expert witness has previously been appointed by the court – Where the husband now seeks permission pursuant to rule 15.49 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) to rely upon another expert report in relation to the same issue – Where the husband is joined in his application by the second and third respondents – Where the application is opposed by the wife’s estate – Where the husband has not established that there is a special reason for the appointment of another expert witness – Where the application is dismissed – Where the parties are granted an extension of time in which to attend a conference with the single expert or to submit a list of questions to the single expert.

  • Ahsan & Ahsan [2020] FamCA 69

    11 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS– Where the wife seeks orders that the husband vacate the former family home – Where the wife seeks pursuant to rule 20.54 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) that a warrant for possession of property issue requiring the husband to vacate the property and give vacant possession to her if he fails to vacate within the time ordered – Where the final property orders provided for the sale of the former family home – Where the husband has obstructed the wife in making arrangements to sell the former family home – Where the wife seeks other orders relating to the enforcement of the final property orders – Orders made largely as sought by the wife.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks orders that the husband pay her costs of the enforcement application in the sum of $15,000 – Where circumstances justify the order for costs as sought by the wife – Order made as sought by the wife.

  • Hett & Seer [2020] FamCA 65

    10 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – application for adjustment of property – undefended – application for divorce stayed by adjournment pending finalisation of property application – costs – application for self-executing orders pursuant to s 112AD – property located in China – contributions

  • Moore & Shirley [2020] FamCA 56

    07 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where final parenting orders were made in November 2018 changing the child’s living arrangements from living with the mother to living with the father and spending supervised time with the mother – where the mother seeks orders that the child live with her and spend supervised time with the father – where the father asks that the court determine the Rice & Asplund question as a threshold issue – where the Court is not persuaded that the mother has established a sufficient change in circumstances – where the mother’s Initiating Application is dismissed.

  • Aldam & Cesari [2020] FamCA 54

    04 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – respondent’s conduct in proceeding dilatory – non-participation in parts of litigation – application for costs of one appearance – costs ordered.

  • Gomis & Dantas [2020] FamCA 45

    31 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a declaration of nullity is sought – Where the parties were validly married in Country D – Where the parties underwent a second marriage ceremony in Australia – Consideration is given to circumstances in which a marriage is found it be void – Where it is found that the Australian marriage is void – Declaration of nullity made.

  • Fiato & Chimin (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 63

    29 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to re-open – where the mother filed an application to re-open the proceedings to adduce further evidence – order made granting the mother leave to re-open to adduce further evidence.

  • Hoda & Pallavi [2020] FamCA 44

    28 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Best interests of the child – Parental Responsibility – Where the father withdrew his application – Where allegations the father has physically and sexually abused the four children – Where the father has significant mental health conditions – Where the Joint Investigative Response Team substantiated the allegations of sexual and physical abuse – Where the father has not spent time with the children in over four years – Orders made as sought by the mother and supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the children spend no time with the father.

  • Chimin & Fiato [2020] FamCA 62

    24 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to re-open – where the mother filed an application to re-open the proceedings to adduce further evidence – orders made granting the mother leave to re-open to adduce further evidence.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting orders – interim parenting order made.

  • Searle & Pencious [2020] FamCA 33

    24 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – indemnity costs – where costs are awarded on an indemnity basis in favour of the wife – where the indemnity costs are of a fixed amount – where the costs follow orders being made declaring the husband a vexatious litigant – where the wife’s vexatious litigant application came at a significant cost but was necessary to end the litigation – where the wife was wholly successful – where the way in which the husband conducted the proceedings is clear justification for departing from the general principles in relation to costs.

  • Staley & Birch [2020] FamCA 47

    24 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – change in residence of child – noncompliance with orders regarding changeover – risk of future noncompliance with orders.

  • Kalant & Jordain [2020] FamCA 43

    23 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – initiating application in the face of previous final judgment – contravention applications – fresh complaints of sexual abuse – Rice & Asplund – change of circumstances justifying further hearing.

  • Bradbury & Lander and Ors [2020] FamCA 41

    21 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Oral Application for Adjournment – Refused.

  • Bradbury & Lander and Ors (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 42

    21 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – Applications in a Case – dismissed

  • Chu & Lorde [2020] FamCA 26

    20 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application – Dismissed.

  • Hikmat & Jarmain [2020] FamCA 19

    17 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties - section 117 (2A) factors – application for enforcement of final parenting orders made by consent – where the applicant seeks party party costs due to the respondent’s failure to comply with final orders – where the proceedings only commenced due to the respondent’s failure to not accept the applicants offers of settlement before the issuance of the application – where the respondent is ordered to pay costs on a party and party basis in a fixed sum.

  • Salt & Salt [2020] FamCA 10

    15 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings.

  • Fiato & Chimin [2020] FamCA 61

    15 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to re-open – where the mother filed an application to re-open the proceedings to adduce further evidence – where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the application – order made granting the mother leave to re-open to adduce further evidence in a limited manner

  • Dimas & Sarantos [2020] FamCA 9

    14 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – RECOVERY ORDER – where the mother has unilaterally retained two young children in Greece – where children have been wrongfully retained within the meaning of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – inappropriate to make a recovery order which would have the effect of removing the children from the care of the mother immediately on the return of the children to Australia.

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING ORDERS – where it is in the best interests of the children to be returned to Australia forthwith – where parents should be prohibited from removing children from Australia – where interests of the children should be independently represented.

  • Ricard & Ricard [2020] FamCA 20

    13 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Best interests – where the parties reached final consent on the first day of trial – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer does not consent to the agreement – where the consent orders provide for unsupervised time – where consent orders are in the best interests of the children

  • Flint & Odger [2020] FamCA 2

    08 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN –where the mother has sole responsibility and the child lives with the mother – where ordered that the child not spend time with the father.

  • Washington & Washington [2019] FamCA 994

    20 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Where the mother maintained from the date of the parents’ separation up until the fourth day of hearing that the father had sexually abused the parties’ daughter – Where the father contended the children had been psychologically abused in the mother’s care as they have come to believe he poses a risk of harm to them – Where the mother dramatically changed her position after her case was complete and the expert had been cross-examined – Where the parties reached agreement about orders that would see the children resume a relationship with their father on an interim basis – Where it is concluded that the mother made an appropriate concession that the father does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm on the basis that he may sexually abuse the daughter – Where the only area of dispute between the parties relates to the children’s education – Where additional considerations considered – Where the children are Aboriginal and this is a significant matter in relation to one of the proposals for school – Where it is in the children’s best interests that they attend the school as proposed by the father.

  • Britt & Britt [2019] FamCA 982

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks further adjustments to interests in property – Where the husband opposes any further adjustment and seeks costs – Where the parties lived together for no less than 30 years – Where the children of the marriage are now adults – Where the wife was a child at the beginning of cohabitation – Where the mother’s contributions are said to have been made more onerous by the alleged violent conduct of the husband – Where there are cross allegations of family violence – Where the parties’ relationship was increasingly violent – Where an adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 is not just in the circumstances – Where there was a long standing power imbalance of the husband over the wife – Where the wife suffered as a result – Where the husband retained the exclusive use of the former matrimonial home which produces income – Where the wife retained monies which have not generated any assets – Where both parties have re-partnered – Where the husband has two young children as a result – Where the wife receives disability support payments and has no capacity for work – Where the husband continues to do farm work – Where the husband’s age moderates the adjustment to the wife in respect of income disparity – Where neither party has superannuation – Where the father has a financial resource by way of inheritance – Where the wife has limited financial resources – Where adjustment factors pursuant to s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) favour the husband – Where adjustment factors pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) favour the wife – Where in the circumstances it is just and equitable to make an adjustment to interests in property.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Procedural – Where final orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court in 2015 in favour of the husband – Where the wife successfully appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia against the orders in 2017 – Where the matter was transferred to this Court.

  • Atkins & Hunt and Ors (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 977

    18 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where a property settlement order was made in 2014 – Where the wife’s appeal of that order was successful and the matter was remitted for rehearing – Where the value of the husband’s interest in family companies is in dispute – Where the wife contends that the companies are the “mere puppet” and the “alter-ego” of the husband – Where the evidence falls short of establishing that the companies were the husband’s “mere puppet” – Whether the husband’s controlling shares in the company should nonetheless have the same value as all the shares in the company – Where the husband transferred part of his shares in the holding company when the wife’s appeal against the 2014 property settlement order was pending –Where the requirements of s 106(B)(1) are satisfied – Where the husband made the substantial financial contribution and the wife made a non-financial contribution during the course of their cohabitation – Where the Court finds it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order, including that the husband pay the wife a sum of money – Where an order pursuant to s 106B(1) is made that will be operatable if the payment by the husband to the wife is not made.

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her spousal maintenance – Where the husband opposes that order being made – Where the Court finds that the wife has a reasonable need which the husband has capacity to pay – Where a spousal maintenance order is made in favour of the wife.

  • Drover & Glasson [2019] FamCA 974

    18 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – The principle in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where final Orders were made by consent – Where the Applicant spends time with the child, but is not a parent of the child – Where the child has severe separation anxiety from the mother that is affecting her day to day functioning – Where the child is expressing strong views about spending time with the Applicant – Order for parenting proceedings to be continued.

  • Leacroft & Darell [2019] FamCA 940

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – With whom the child shall communicate and spend time – Where the parties agree the child shall continue to live with the mother – Where the mother has provided a safe and secure home environment for the child – Where the child presently spends limited supervised time with the father – Where a three hour drive distances the father from the child – Where the father and child have a relationship – Where there are substantiated allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the father is yet to fully stabilise his unaddressed anger – Where the father seeks to spend substantial and significant unsupervised time with the child – Where the mother opposes time and communication between the father and child – Where in the alternative the mother agrees to ongoing supervised time between the father and child - Where there is benefit to the child in maintaining a meaningful relationship with the father – Where the Court must balance the need to protect the child from potential risk in the father’s care with the need to promote a meaningful relationship with the father – Ordered communication with the father on a weekly basis – Ordered supervised time with the father for a period of time and thereafter, unsupervised time with additional time as agreed in writing.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the father seeks equal shared parental responsibility – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply – Where the mother has been the sole decision maker for the child since separation – Where the father acknowledges the mother’s capacity to care for the child and make good decisions – Ordered the mother has sole parental responsibility.

  • Lamsaard & Ebrahim [2019] FamCA 934

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – International Relocation – Where the child and the father live in Australia – Where the mother works and lives in City S – Where the mother seeks to have the child live with her in City S – child has lived with her father in Australia for four years – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose relocation – Where the mother’s application to relocate the child’s permanent place of residence is dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property Orders - Application by father to set aside property orders under section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Fathers application to set orders aside successful.

  • Witnall & Witnall [2019] FamCA 930

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Where final parenting orders have previously been made in 2012 and 2015 and this is the third trial in seven years – Where the most recent order provided that the father have sole parental responsibility, the child live with him and spend alternate weekends with his mother – Where the mother seeks that the child’s primary residence be changed such that the child live with her – Where the mother has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the father’s role in the child’s life and has repeatedly involved the child in the proceedings, and the child has suffered as a consequence – Where the mother continues to agitate issues raised in the first and second trials – Where the child has expressed a preference to live with his mother but the Court cannot be satisfied that this preference is honestly held by him – Where the independent children’s lawyer proposes that the child should continue to live with his father and that his time with his mother should be significantly reduced – Where the possible adverse effects on the child of a reduction in the child’s time with his mother and brother are outweighed – Where the child will continue to live with his father and spend a weekend day with his mother twice each school term and on special occasions and that the father will continue to have sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to consult with the mother.

  • Tritton & Ryan [2019] FamCA 929

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child should live and spend time – Where the mother seeks the child live with her in the EE Region NSW, that she have sole parental responsibility, and that he spend alternate weekends (one in the EE Region and one in the FF Region) and half school holidays with the father – Where the father seeks that the child live with him in Town B NSW, equal shared parental responsibility, and the child spend alternate weekends (one in the EE Region and one in the FF Region) and half school holidays with the mother – Where the mother alleges that the father has perpetrated family violence against her including making threats to kill the child, that he raped and strangled her, and that he sexually abused the child – Where despite her allegations the mother supports the child spending substantial unsupervised time with the father and could provide no adequate explanation to support her position – Where the father denies, save for one occasion, perpetrating family violence against the mother or abusing the child at all – Where there are many inconsistences in the mother’s evidence and a significant body of evidence contradicting her evidence – Where the Court finds that, save for one occasion, the father has not perpetrated family violence and is not an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the mother has repeatedly interfered with the child’s relationship with his father – Where the father has demonstrated consistent commitment to the child and supports the child’s relationship with the mother – Where the mother concedes she cannot communicate with the father such that an order for equal shared parental responsibility is not appropriate – Where the father will have sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to consult, the child will live with him and spend alternate weekends (one in the EE Region and one in the FF Region) and half school holidays with the mother.

  • Salemi & Salemi [2019] FamCA 976

    02 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution – Where the parties were engaged in the running of small businesses – Where there are existing tax debts owed by each of the parties – Where the parties agree that those debts be paid – Where it is difficult to ascertain the value and contents of the asset pool – Orders made for the payment of tax debts – Payment to come from the wife’s share of the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Wife to argue that a share of the husband’s property settlement be applied to those payments in the substantive proceedings – Where the husband seeks the appointment of an administrator – Where the Court declines to order the appointment of an administrator.

  • Field & Kingston (No. 4) [2019] FamCA 863

    21 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property Adjustment – Where both parties seek adjustive orders – Where appropriate to make adjustive orders – Where discussion of applicable principles – Where consideration of relevant contributions and s 75(2) factors – Where orders made for property adjustment.

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where application dismissed.

  • Hamlyn & Mansfeld [2019] FamCA 842

    15 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution – Where the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home are held in a controlled monies account (“the account”) – Where the husband seeks to obtain funds from the account to discharge various debts – Where the wife seeks that the husband’s application be dismissed – Where the former matrimonial home was in the sole name of the husband – Where the financial contributions of the husband were greater than those of the wife – Where the husband has no other funds available to meet his debts and living expenses – Orders made – Husband to receive a payment from the account.

    FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Where the wife seeks to be reinstated as a director of a company of which the husband is the sole director and shareholder – Where the wife’s removal was due to the parties’ inability to co-operate and due to the husband’s contention that a third party with whom the wife was in communication may be hostile to the parties’ interests – Where the latter point was largely conceded by the wife – Where there is no evidence that the husband had acted against the parties’ interests in his role as sole director – Application dismissed.

  • Aitken & Aitken [2019] FamCA 1010

    23 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to re-open – Where the wife seeks to include an affidavit filed after judgment was reserved – Where the evidence is not so material that it is required by the interests of justice – Where the evidence is unlikely to affect the result of the case – Application dismissed

    FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Exclusion from matrimonial home – Where each of the parties seeks an order for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home – Where the wife is the current resident of the former matrimonial home – Where the parties are engaged in running a business – Where the former matrimonial home was previously used for business purposes – Where the husband contends that exclusive occupation by him is required to maintain that purpose – Where it is in both parties’ interests that the business continue to trade profitably – Where the parties are unable to co-operate or make joint use of the property – Where it is not just or convenient to exclude the wife from the home – Order made for the wife to have exclusive occupation – Order made for the husband to be restrained from attending the property unless by agreement in writing

    FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Where the wife seeks to be restored to a position where she is involved in the day to day running of the parties’ business – Where the husband seeks that the wife be removed as a director and he have sole responsibility for the running of the parties’ business – Where each of the parties alleges that the other has caused financial harm to the business – Where the wife alleges that the husband is acting inconsistently with his obligations as a director – Where it may be necessary for an administrator to be appointed – Where neither party has sought such an order as yet – matter adjourned to allow the wife to elect whether this Court is the appropriate forum to seek an order for an appointment of an administrator

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks an order for spousal maintenance – Where the wife has access to a substantial funds – Where the wife cannot establish that she cannot adequately support herself – Where the source of the proposed spousal maintenance is jointly owned by the wife – Application dismissed.

  • Babkin & Babkin (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 970

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Applicant and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek costs on an indemnity basis – where the Respondent was wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – where there was an offer of settlement on the part of the Applicant – circumstances of an exceptional kind warrant the making of an order for costs.

  • Smith & Smith [2019] FamCA 1033

    19 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where, on the last day of the final hearing, the father makes an application for the immediate removal of the child from the mother’s care to the father – Where the Court has grave concerns about the welfare of the child if she were to remain in the mother’s care based on a number of matters raise during the proceedings – Where the child shall live with the father until further order – Where the father and step-mother are able to assist the child in the transition to the father’s care – Where the mother is restrained from spending time with or communicating with the child.

  • Esselbrugge & Esselbrugge and Anor (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 935

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the second respondents sought an order for costs after the parties were unable to agree on consent orders for a pleading regime –Where the husband has not complied with orders to pay the wife spousal maintenance – Where the wife’s spousal maintenance is not being paid in large part because of the second respondents’ refusal to loan any more money to the husband – Where the wife declined to file consent orders until the husband paid her spousal maintenance – Where s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applied – Where on the balance the circumstances do not justify the making of an order for costs – Second respondents’ application for costs dismissed.

  • Suk & Fulham (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 921

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties have been separated for nine years – Where the wife has greater future earning capacity – Where the husband has the benefit of funds not accounted for in the balance sheet – Where the contributions are assessed as equal – Where there are no adjustments for s75(2).

  • McMillan & McMillan [2019] FamCA 928

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – RECUSAL – Where the applicant seeks that his Honour recuse himself from hearing any further matters between the parties – Where the test in Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 applied – Where the court is not satisfied that by permitting the matter to proceed, a fair minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that his Honour was not bringing an impartial mind to bear in adjudicating the issues arising from the respondent’s enforcement warrant – Where the court is not satisfied that any of the allegations demonstrate a proper basis for his Honour to recuse himself – Application in a Case dismissed – Order for the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs as assessed on a party/party basis.

  • Charmers & Burnett [2019] FamCA 922

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – AMENDMENT PURSUANT TO THE SLIP RULE – Where the mother sought to correct an order pursuant to r 17.02(1) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) to reflect his Honour’s true intention – Where the mother asserts that his Honour intended to make an order allowing her to take the children to Country B in periods other than the Christmas school holidays – Where the court is satisfied that the orders do not properly reflect the reasons – Where the intention was that the mother should be able to take the children overseas in winter or summer – Amendment to Order 11 and 12 of the orders pronounced 20 August 2019.

  • Fogiel & Chase [2019] FamCA 926

    05 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Application by husband for decree of nullity of marriage – Where the husband says he forced the wife into marriage under duress – Where the wife neither supports nor opposes the application – Where no decree of nullity is made

  • Curtain & Curtain [2019] FamCA 919

    04 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a case to bifurcate s.79A and s.79 application – application refused.

  • Barre & Barre and Ors [2019] FamCA 907

    03 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Whether the Court should make an interim release of property in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether there should be a release of funds from controlled monies account – where there is an order in the nature of a freezing order – order made to release funds – where the characterisation of the funds will be determined at final hearing.

  • Grand & Grand [2019] FamCA 914

    12 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution – where the wife seeks interim property settlement of $60,000 – Where the husband opposes – Whether to make orders – Principles in relation to interim property – Order.

  • Westacott & Dunwoody (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 898

    28 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where application for costs arising from determination under s 90J(2B) that a Termination Agreement is binding – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where order for costs made on a party/party basis.

  • Eracken & Eracken [2019] FamCA 889

    26 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS - refused

  • Tomlinson & Conlan (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 892

    26 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – School holiday periods – Special days – Interim consent orders

  • Easom & Burhan [2019] FamCA 861

    25 Nov 2019

    INTERIM PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – significant amounts involved – dispute about whether husband or his sister was properly entitled to $11m – husband having access to a loan facility of up to $3m – that source of funds was well capable of meeting the wife’s claim to spousal maintenance and interim property orders – wife’s applications granted.

  • Leroux & Leroux [2019] FamCA 856

    22 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application to vary final orders made in 2016 – where the mother and the younger child now reside in Western Australia – where the younger child is currently incarcerated in Western Australia – transfer of proceedings to the Family Court of Western Australia

  • Kershaw & Byrd [2019] FamCA 864

    21 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Best Interests – Where the father ceased engaging in the proceedings – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where orders made providing the mother with sole parental responsibility – Where orders made for the child to live with the mother

  • Baum & Lokare (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 868

    21 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS –Where counsel for the Applicant wife made an ex parte Application pursuant to rule 20.54 of the Family Court Rules 2004 that a warrant for the possession of property issue requiring the Respondent’s caretakers to vacate the property and give vacant possession of the land to the purchases of the property – Where the Respondent was subsequently served on the day of the hearing and notified of the hearing time – Where Orders were made on 12 March 2019 for the sale of the property – Where a contract for sale has been entered into that requires vacant possession of the property – Where urgency of the Application is established – Where, pursuant to rule 1.12 of the Family Law Rules 2004, the Court dispenses with the seven (7) day service requirement under rule 20.54(1)– Orders made for a Warrant for possession of the property – Orders made for Costs in favour of the Applicant.

  • Kirke & Xuan and Anor (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 875

    20 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – RULING – whether to admit into evidence a document purporting to be an affidavit and exhibits of the second respondent – document signed but no jurat clause – no evidence of its translation – no evidence of the circumstances of its creation – document contains a “representation” for the purposes of s 63 of the Evidence Act – maker of document unavailable as defined – document admitted into evidence.

  • Mulford & Mulford [2019] FamCA 843

    19 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Property Orders – Farming concern – net assets valued at approximately $3m made up of farms, cattle and horses, cash-at-bank and water rights – different assessments of wife’s likely division of property at trial – six year marriage – contributions in issue – $130,000 ordered – interlocutory orders made for disclosure and valuations.

  • Conrad & Conrad and Anor (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 849

    19 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where costs applications were made by each party after a trial was conducted between the wife, the husband and his sister as to the interests of each of them in respect of property of the parties and property was split 55/45 in favour of the wife – Where the costs applications of the husband, his sister and an application made by the wife in 2015 are dismissed – Where the recent written offer to settle the matter after the adjourned trial last year would have left the husband $143,000 better off than going to trial – Where the costs application of the wife is partly successful.

  • Roberts & Liang [2019] FamCA 932

    18 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournments – where the matter is part-heard – where the respondent’s counsel and lawyer withdrew at the commencement of the hearing – where the respondent seeks an adjournment to enable her to seek alternate legal representation – where the respondent is assisted by an interpreter – order that the proceedings be adjourned.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the applicant seeks costs against the respondent – consideration of circumstances justifying the making of a costs order – where the adjournment of the final hearing resulted in costs thrown away – costs ordered in accordance with schedule 3 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

  • Milward & Mr B trading as C Lawyers [2019] FamCA 850

    18 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Review of Registrar’s Decision – Where the applicant filed an application to set aside a costs agreement between herself and her former lawyers –Where this was rejected as proceedings had commenced in State Courts – Where it is not necessary for the Family Court to intervene in that process – Application dismissed.

  • Reslan & Roosta [2019] FamCA 851

    18 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Where the father has filed four applications alleging the mother’s contravention of orders – Where on each occasion the mother admitted that the child had not spent time with the father pursuant to orders – Where the mother cited reasonable excuse – Where on each occasion the child had been unwell – Where the child had never lived with the father – Where the father had no place of residence in Sydney to spend time with the child if sick – Where the contraventions are found to be reasonable.

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks twice-weekly telephone communication to be video communication – Where this is opposed by the mother – Where the father seeks to know the mother’s address – Where the father has previously made the mother uncomfortable in pursuit of reconciliation – Where there is no need for the father to know the mother’s specific address – Orders made for video communication.

  • Drees & Haydon [2019] FamCA 912

    15 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the father sought final parenting orders in his initiating application – where the father failed to attend the mention – where there have been Care by Secretary Orders made in the Children’s Court in relation to the parties’ children – where the mother submits that the Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear this matter – order that all extant applications be dismissed.

  • Olloran & Carselton [2019] FamCA 895

    08 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – leave granted pursuant to s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to proceed after the standard application period

  • Stone & Stone [2019] FamCA 860

    01 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave granted for the mother to institute further parenting proceedings.

  • Layne & Headman [2019] FamCA 853

    31 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – interim orders made inviting the Department of Child Safety, Youth & Women to intervene and Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek funding for a psychiatric assessment of the mother

  • Headman & Reagon [2019] FamCA 852

    31 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – interim orders made inviting the Department of Child Safety, Youth & Women to intervene and Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek funding for a psychiatric assessment of the mother

  • Prout & Daniell [2019] FamCA 836

    29 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Leave to produce information that identifies notifer

  • Ellison & Mallick [2019] FamCA 899

    25 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Where there are serious risk factors involved in the care of each parent – Where parental responsibility allocated to the Minister – Where alternate care such as foster care not available to children – Where the Secretary is considering whether restoration to the care of either parent is a realistic possibility – Where having regard to evidence of an appropriate qualified expert mother identified as parent who poses less of a risk of harm – Where order increasing mother’s time with children supervised by the Secretary and order restraining mother from bringing any person other than maternal half-siblings to spend time with children is in the children’s best interests.

  • Hays & Fitch [2019] FamCA 859

    22 Nov 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Application to vary final orders made in 2016 – where the mother and the younger child now reside in Western Australia – where the younger child is currently incarcerated in Western Australia - transfer of proceedings to the Family Court of Western Australia

  • El Saeid & Masih and Anor [2019] FamCA 766

    23 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution – Where the wife seeks a payment from the husband as part of interim property distribution – Where the wife seeks to apply those funds to legal fees for her current legal representation – Where there are existing orders in place dictating that any funds received by the wife as part of property settlement be first applied to the legal fees owed to her former solicitor – Where the wife seeks to vary those orders – Where the wife’s former solicitor opposes the application – Where the husband opposes the application and seeks indemnity costs for the hearing of the application – Where there is no available source of funds to meet the order – Where the Court is not satisfied that the wife’s application would leave the former solicitor “in no worse position” than he would be under the existing orders – Application dismissed – Costs reserved.

  • Saget and Anor & Samol [2019] FamCA 858

    22 Oct 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – orders made for the child to live with the maternal grandparents and the maternal grandparents to have sole parental responsibility

  • Atwood & Atwood [2019] FamCA 759

    20 Sep 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Best interests – With whom the child lives – With whom the child spends time – Parental Responsibility – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with him and for the child to have no contact with the mother – Where the mother does not seek any orders relating to parental responsibility, time spent with the child nor any workable orders about the parent with whom the child will live – Where there are concerns about the mother’s mental health – Where the child was removed from the mother’s care by the Department of Family and Community Services – Court finds that the need to protect the child from harm outweighs the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his mother – Order made for the father to have sole parental responsibility, for the child to live with him and for the child to spend no time with the mother.

    CHILD ABUSE – Where the child suffered neglect in the mother’s care

    FAMILY VIOLENCE - Court finds that the mother prevented the child from having contact with the father.

    PROPERTY – Property settlement – Contributions – Adjustments – Where the father seeks the settlement be executed by way of superannuation splitting order using a base amount – Where the mother opposes the settlement occurring solely by way of superannuation splitting order – Where the majority of the property pool is held in superannuation and a controlled moneys account – Where the father seeks to be reimbursed for certain outgoings in relation to the former matrimonial home – Where no balance sheet was provided by the parties – Two pools approach – Adjustment of both pools in favour of the mother warranted by s 75(2) factors – Orders made for the father to be reimbursed for certain costs – Orders made for splitting of superannuation using a base amount and for the balance of the controlled moneys account to be distributed between the parties.

  • Medapati & Revanka [2019] FamCA 884

    21 Aug 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where final judgment was delivered in this matter – Where the sale of one of the properties could not occur as per the Orders as they were previously worded – Where the Respondent to these proceedings was not heard at the hearing of the application due to his failure to purge his contempt of previous Court Orders – Where the Orders are varied to allow for the sale to be facilitated.

  • El Saeid & Masih and Ors [2019] FamCA 497

    25 Jul 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Threshold issue to identify and determine the value of the asset pool – Where the wife contends that the husband was, at all relevant times, in control of a company and trust accounts established by his family – Where that finding is not available on the evidence – Where the wife contends that the husband’s actions pertaining to these assets were attempts to deny the wife her entitlement to them – Where both the company and trust accounts were established prior to the husband meeting the wife – Points of claim dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband and wife each seek to re-open the case for the purpose of tendering fresh evidence while judgment is reserved – Where the evidence could not have been discovered prior to the end of the hearing – Where there would have been no prejudice to either party by way of the late admission of the evidence – Where the evidence to be considered is in relation to findings about the credit of the wife and husband – Where that evidence would not affect the outcome of the proceedings - Where that evidence is not so material that the interests of justice require its admission– Both applications dismissed.

  • Koch & Kest [2019] FamCA 873

    12 Jul 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim property orders and injunctions from disposing of funds – Sale of former matrimonial home and distribution of proceeds of sale – Order for wife and children to live in a former investment property of the parties and husband to pay all outgoings – Payment of debts from a controlled monies account.

  • Ramsey & Ramsey and Ors (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 883

    08 Jul 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the parties in this matter formulated consent Orders to dispose of a number of interim applications before the Court – Where one issue remained outstanding which needed judicial determination – Where the wording in the Orders is to be as proposed by the Applicant.

  • Markell & Markell (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 882

    27 Jun 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Cross-examination – Where the Applicant filed an Initiating Application seeking to enforce Orders previously made by this Court which the Respondent had not complied with – Where the Respondent made an oral application to be given leave to cross-examine the Applicant on the affidavit she filed in support of her Initiating Application – Where the Respondent did not point to any specific parts of her affidavit which he asserted were false and/or not written by her – Where leave to cross-examine is refused.

  • Murgatroyd & Murgatroyd (No. 3) [2019] FamCA 881

    30 May 2019

    FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – Where the father seeks a number of Orders in the lead up to the parenting trial in this matter – Where all parties, including the father, consented to the parenting and property proceedings being separated – Where, among other Orders, the father seeks to have both proceedings re-joined and either adjourned pending the outcome of proceedings in Germany or for both to proceed on the commencement date of the parenting proceedings on the evidence currently available to the Court – Where the length of time this matter has been before the Court and the need to finalise the parenting matters for the children’s sakes are determinative in deciding it is appropriate for the parenting proceedings to proceed as listed – Where it is not appropriate to hear the property proceedings on the current evidence, as there is a significant factual dispute and it would be unjust and inequitable to do so while proceedings in a Germany Court are ongoing.

  • Marshman & Baric [2019] FamCA 880

    16 May 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where an oral application was made by the Applicant for leave to read and rely upon two affidavits filed the afternoon before the Hague Convention hearing was to commence – Where the form, relevance and context of the affidavits is not clear and where both were nevertheless filed outside of the time provided for in the trial directions – Where the oral application is dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where there is a discretion whether to allow cross-examination in Hague Convention matters – Where this is a different Hague Convention matter as both parents are present in Australia, are parties to the proceedings and the principal questions largely turn on evidence and credit – Where it is appropriate to allow cross-examination of these parties.

  • Livesou & Zhou [2019] FamCA 878

    29 Apr 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the Husband seeks an adjournment of the trial because he and his legal representatives were not ready for the trial as a result of the Husband’s ill-health and impecuniosity – Where there was no other reason provided for the lateness of the application for an adjournment – Where the application is dismissed as it is not in the interests of either party for the adjournment to be granted.

  • Gwen & Gwen [2019] FamCA 872

    04 Mar 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim application by wife for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home and spouse maintenance - Wife granted exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home – Consideration of the threshold test under section 72 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Wife able to support herself adequately - Wife’s application for interim spousal maintenance dismissed.

  • Ogilvy & Ogilvy [2019] FamCA 877

    18 Feb 2019

    FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of case guardian – Where appointment of case guardian for the wife is made by consent – Where appropriate for orders to be made appointing wife’s father as case guardian for the wife

  • Auden & Auden (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 125

    12 Feb 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim property

  • Donne & Scully (No. 2) [2019] FamCA 950

    10 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Where the mother seeks orders that the children live with her and have no contact with the father – Where the father disengaged from proceedings – Where the mother and the father are convicted fraudsters and lived separately from society with the children – Where the way in which the children were raised is described as “gross psychological abuse” – Part VII of the Family Law Act 1995 (Cth) applied – Where the children reported that the father was violent, controlling and abusive of them – Where the father poses a risk to the children – Where the children would not obtain benefit from having a relationship with the father – Order that the children live with the mother – Order that the father neither spend time nor communicate with the children – Injunction issued

  • Babkin & Babkin [2019] FamCA 867

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Parenting – application in a case where father seeks discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and adjournment of the final hearing – application in a case dismissed – prior Hague Convention proceedings in Israel – mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek to proceed on an undefended basis – final orders made by consent of the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer – sole parental responsibility – children live with the mother – father in Israel – children to spend supervised time with the father in Australia

  • Frawley & Frawley and Anor [2019] FamCA 913

    02 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW - ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to permit adoption proceedings – Where the Respondent biological father is deceased – Order that leave be granted.

  • Pelton & Banbury and Anor [2020] FamCA 16

    17 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Between parties - where an application is made by the wife and second named respondent for the sale of the business – where the husband did not make his position in relation to the business clear - where orders are made for the sale – where the wife seeks costs on a party and party basis – where the second named respondent seeks indemnity costs – where there are circumstances justifying an order for costs – order for costs in favour of the wife and second named respondent on a party and party basis

  • Smith & Smith [2020] FamCA 34

    28 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – With whom the child lives and spends time – Where the child has lived with the mother, who is her primary attachment figure, and spent time with the father – Where the mother stopped the father seeing the child and alleged that the child had been subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse in the father’s household – Where during the trial, these allegations were not pressed but the mother maintained that the child spend supervised time with the father – Where the father seeks that the child live with him and commence spending time with the mother after a moratorium period of six months – Where departmental investigations found that the child experienced emotional harm and the mother was the person responsible – Where the family report writer opined that if the child remained with the mother, the child’s longer-term emotional wellbeing is likely to be compromised and this will continue to impact on the child’s education and social development – Where it is found that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the child – Where the child will live with the father and after a two month moratorium, the mother will spend a long period of supervised time with the child before commencing unsupervised time.

  • Pelton & Banbury and Anor (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 17

    17 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW - COSTS – indemnity costs - where an application was made by the wife and second respondent for indemnity costs and an anti-suit injunction – where the wife and second respondent sought orders that the husband dismiss proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of Victoria commenced by him on behalf of a business entity owned by the parties – where the husband is restrained by previous orders from exercising any decision making ability in relation to the business entities - where the husband ultimately consented to an anti-suit injunction but opposed any order for costs – where the circumstances of this case merit the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis – where the husbands conduct in instituting proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the way in which he conducted himself in relation to the application that follows justifies an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where orders are made for a specified sum of costs to be paid to both the wife and second respondent

  • Osborne & Galloway [2020] FamCA 46

    07 Feb 2020

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – where the mother contends that the child not spend any overnight time with the father until the child reaches 13 years of age – where the evidence does not support such an order – where the Court does not make a finding that either parent presents as an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – final orders made for the child to spend graduated unsupervised overnight time with the father

  • Green & Wall [2020] FamCA 15

    17 Jan 2020

    FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – variation of final property orders in accordance with section 79A – where final property orders were made by consent – where the husband has failed to comply with the final orders – where the matter has been complicated due to the location of the husband in the United States of America – where the husband commenced proceedings in the United States of America to avoid his obligations pursuant to the final orders – where it is just and equitable to vary the orders as sought by the wife - where the husband has failed to engage in the current proceedings – where the husband is ordered to pay the wife’s costs of the enforcement proceedings on an indemnity basis

  • Barone & Whittle [2019] FamCA 924

    06 Dec 2019

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim application – where the applicant in the substantive proceedings seeks orders pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where respondent in the substantive proceedings denies the existence of the de facto relationship – where the respondent seeks the issue of the de facto relationship be determined as a separate and threshold issue – application for determination of threshold issue or bifurcation – applicant opposes separate determination – where overlap of facts relevant to the determination of jurisdiction and issues relevant to s 90SB(a) and (c) and s 90SM– no separate determination ordered.