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.

  • Re: Matthew [2017] FamCA 74

    15 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Gender dysphoria in adolescents – Determination of whether the child is competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for the administration of testosterone.

  • Suttikul and Anor & Suttikul and Ors [2017] FamCA 70

    03 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia – Emphasised that s 60G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) only empowers the Court to grant leave to applicants to commence adoption proceedings in the proper forum – Where there are adoption proceedings on foot in the Supreme Court of NSW – Decided this Court has no power, absent some underlying justiciable issue, to make declarations that are binding on and enforceable in other superior courts of record – Where there is no issue to be decided under the Family Law Act – Order that the application is dismissed 

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Abuse of Process – Where the declarations sought by the applicants would render nugatory the pending hearing before the Supreme Court of NSW – Concluded the application was designed to outflank the immigration dispute pending before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the adoption proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of NSW – Order that the application is dismissed
  • Matthews & Norris [2017] FamCA 69

    06 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate to New Zealand with the child on an interim basis – Where two previous applications of the same sort have been heard, determined and dismissed by this Court – Where there was no evidence of any change in circumstances since the application for relocation was last before the Court and no amendment to existing interim orders is warranted – Ordered the mother’s application is dismissed 

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Recovery order – Where the mother ceased allowing the child to spend time with the father pursuant to interim orders – Where the mother would not commit to faithful implementation of the existing parenting orders – Decided a recovery order should be issued and operate for one month – Recovery order issued 

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Where the father seeks to rely on a second affidavit – Where the affidavit was in reply to the mother’s Response seeking alteration of interim orders – Application of rule 9.07 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Leave for the father to rely on the additional affidavit is granted
  • Walsh & Walsh [2017] FamCA 68

    13 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Where father put on notice that the mother would seek final orders in his absence – Where no appearance by father – Where appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis – Consideration of children’s best interests – Where children to live with the mother and she have sole parental responsibility – Where children shall spend time with the father

  • Blizzard & Camoes [2017] FamCA 67

    03 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Stay application relating to collection of money due under assessment – where the payer is the father – where the mother is over-holding the children in Germany – where the father is the parent entitled to all of the time of the children by virtue of an order – where the mother’s circumstances in Germany are impecunious – where the court has discretion – where stay is appropriate.

  • Simcock & Leila [2017] FamCA 64

    10 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the children live – With whom the children spend time – Parental responsibility – Best interests of the children – Where the father has disengaged from proceedings -  Where the father has perpetrated family violence against the mother and the children - The children live with the mother – The mother have sole parental responsibility – The father is restrained from communicating with the children – The father is restrained from approaching the mother – No contact with the father.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Non-appearance of a party – Undefended final hearing.
  • Dukes and Anor & Talford [2017] FamCA 63

    10 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Non-parent – With whom a child spends time – Where the applicants are the child’s maternal grandparents – Where the child’s mother is deceased – Where the applicants seek orders to spend time with the child once per month – Where the grandparents had close involvement in the early part of the child’s life – Where at trial the single expert changed the recommendations as set out in her report – Where there is a high level of conflict and mistrust between the parties – Where the child has been exposed to conflict – Where the child has displayed resistance to spending time with or communicating with the grandparents  – Where orders requiring the child to spend time with the grandparents would expose the child to a continuation of conflict – Where the risk of the child having no relationship with the grandparents is outweighed by the likely trauma involved if structured spend time orders were made – Application dismissed – Order made that the child spend time with the grandparents as agreed between them and the father.

  • South & Pritchard [2017] FamCA 62

    10 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – best interests- where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility and for the children to spend no time with the father – where the father seeks equal shared parental responsibility and for one child to live with him – where the father has consistently failed to attend supervised time with the children – where the father has not complied with relevant Orders and trial directions - where the father is unable to protect the children from his views and belief system – where the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children – where the children are to spend no time with the father

  • Quigley & Tilson [2017] FamCA 61

    10 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING – where parties have shared care of five year old but she is about to commence school – both parents acknowledge shared care has to end because parties live in different country towns – where the distinguishing feature of their proposals lies in the father’s capacity to provide uninterrupted care whilst mother cannot offer the same because of her health situation.

  • Wallace & Wallace and Ors [2017] FamCA 60

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim orders – where parenting orders are sought by both the mother and the father – where the children currently reside with the paternal grandparents – where the parties have been engaged in reunification therapy – where there is a family assessment report – where consideration is given to the best interests of the child – where the children are to remain living with the paternal grandparents – where it is ordered that the children spend gradually increasing time with the mother – where an order is made for payment of the cost of the reunification therapy – where the interim matters are further adjourned.

  • Thurston & Loomis [2017] FamCA 59

    25 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim proceedings – Application in a Case seeking for school fees to be paid from monies held in trust for both parties

  • Forlan & Forlan and Anor [2017] FamCA 58

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim orders – litigation funding – where the wife seeks funds to assist in her expenses of litigation – where the application is opposed by the husband – where there is an expert report – where the Court is not satisfied that such an order should be made – where the application is dismissed. 

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – where the husband seeks a section 128 certificate – where the Court does not consider that section 128 has application in the present circumstances – where the application is dismissed.

  • Burton & Slater [2017] FamCA 57

    01 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Where the child enjoys a meaningful relationship with both parents – Where the mother concedes the child’s relationship with the father should be restored – Where an equal time arrangement would not be in the best interests of the child – Decided the child should have a single, stable home – Ordered the child live with the mother and spend substantial time with the father

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournments – Where the matter is listed for final hearing – Where the mother conceded at commencement of the trial the child was probably not sexually abused by the father and the father posed no risk of any harm to the child – When the mother’s concessions altered the complexion of the case and the parties proposals for the child’s future  – Where the mother acknowledged her compliance with previous orders had been poor and adjournment of proceedings would allow her to demonstrate her commitment to the implementation of orders restoring the child’s relationship with the father – Order that the proceedings be adjourned for eight months

  • Peacock & Peacock [2017] FamCA 56

    07 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – CHILDREN – Where the mother unilaterally relocated the children to Town B from the Region C – Where the father seeks orders for the return of the children to the Region C – Where the mother seeks orders that she be able to remain in Town B or in the alternative for certain conditions if orders are made for the children to return to the Region C – Where orders are made for the mother to return the children to the Region C and for the children to live with her and spend time with their father – Where orders are made for the father pay monies towards assisting the mother securing rental property in the Region C area – Where liberty is granted to the mother to make a further interim application to assist her financially to live in Sydney in the short term – Where the final hearing is expedited.

  • Pryor & Judd [2017] FamCA 55

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – Where the mother filed all relevant material whereas the father had filed none by the first day of trial – Where the mother has the full time care of the subject child – Where the mother did not have the benefit of a grant of Legal Aid –Where the father or his new partner have not complied with previous orders – Where the mother is entirely successful with her application and the father entirely unsuccessful – Ordered the father pay 50 per cent of the mother’s costs of final hearing

  • Harland & Harland [2017] FamCA 54

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Where the father seeks orders that the child live with him or in the alternative that he spend increased time with the child – Where the father makes that application based on evidence about the mother’s use of drugs at times when the child was in her care – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the father’s application – Where no orders altering the current parenting arrangement are made – Where the mother seeks orders varying the current orders for urinalysis testing – Where orders are varied restricting the times when the father can give notice for urinalysis testing – Where the mother seeks an order that she be permitted to travel to New Zealand with the child to attend a wedding – Where the parties agree that the mother and the child can travel to New Zealand subject to certain conditions

  • Berne & Hume [2017] FamCA 53

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Child representative – Where both parties have the capacity to contribute towards costs – Where neither party has the benefit of a grant from Legal Aid – Where the Applicant was not entirely unsuccessful – Ordered the parties make equal contribution to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – Where there has been lengthy litigation in the United Kingdom relating to the subject child – Where the Applicant was unable to enforce the Orders made in the United Kingdom in this jurisdiction – Where the Court was unable to hear and determine the matter – Where neither party has been entirely unsuccessful – Decided it would be unjust to make a costs order – Ordered the application is dismissed
  • Narkis & Narkis [2017] FamCA 52

    09 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY HEARING – applicant self-represented seeks discovery, distribution of funds to obtain legal representation – where the evidence to support such orders is not provided.

    FAMILY LAW – SUBPOENAE – objection by applicant to release of her (and the respondent’s) police records in a parenting matter – where no basis for assertion of oppression.

    FAMILY LAW – OBJECTION – by mental health clinic of treatment of the children – where the objection is based on statutory grounds and concern for the applicant as well as the child - Objection overruled.
  • Dorsett & Godard [2017] FamCA 51

    08 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the husband pays the child’s school fees – Where the husband seeks that the wife contribute equally to the costs of the school fees – Where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made findings based on the husband’s payment of the child’s school fees – Where the husband has not advanced a proper basis for a change in the existing arrangements for the payment of school fees – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – ADULT CHILD MAINTENANCE – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay adult child maintenance – Where the adult child is a student at university – Where the adult child requires financial support to complete her education – Where the husband did not contend that he lacks the financial capacity to provide financial support – Where the Court does not accept that the husband should provide no financial support – Order made that the husband pay adult child maintenance in the amount of $450 per week.

  • Pavlek & Spice [2017] FamCA 47

    03 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Between parties – Where final orders made 3 years prior required the husband to sell a parcel of shares for the best attainable price after a 12 month period – Where those orders were appealed unsuccessfully – Where the period of 12 months has elapsed – Where an offer was made on the shares – Where the husband did not accept the offer made – Where the husband did not disclose to the wife an offer had been made – Where the wife makes an application to compel the sale and a Registrar must sign the documents – Decided it would be just for the husband to meet the costs of the wife – Ordered the husband pay the wife’s costs of the relevant application as agreed or assessed

  • Blunt & Smythe [2017] FamCA 49

    08 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Parental responsibility –  Where the father wishes to participate in making major long term decisions for the children – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Whether the parties are unable to communicate - Where the is no evidence to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Change of name – Where the mother seeks the hyphenation of her and the father’s surnames for the children – Where the father seeks the children have his surname but use the hyphenation of both surnames for school, medical and extra-curricular activities – Where the children’s names will be changed to a hyphenation of the mother’s and father’s surnames.

  • Hylands & Collette [2017] FamCA 46

    02 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the child should spend time – Where the mother acknowledges the father is an important part of the child’s life  – Where the mother’s concern is confined to the child’s safety in the father’s care – Where the father has an impaired parenting capacity – Where the single expert makes no diagnosis of a mental or psychotic disorder in relation to the father  – Where the child is exposed to the risk of the father’s unstable personality – Where the father’s personality disrupts his ability to meet the needs of the child – Where the Family Consultant predicts future conflict as the child matures because of the father’s rigid control – Where the evidence does not show the father has the ability to improve his parenting capacity – Emphasised the need for the proceedings to be decided on evidence and not speculation on a series of favourable assumptions – Concluded the child should only spend time with the father under supervision to safeguard her emotional stability – Ordered the father spend supervised time with the child

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Where evidence of family violence renders the presumption inapplicable – Where equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests – Where the parents ability to communicate is compromised – Ordered parental responsibility allocated to the mother

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Risk of sexual abuse – Where the father was long ago convicted of the sexual molestation of his step-sister – Where the single expert considered the risk of the child’s sexual abuse was satisfactorily mitigated but the Family Consultant did not – Concluded the evidence did not support finding of unacceptable risk of the child’s sexual abuse
  • Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services & Watkin [2017] FamCA 45

    31 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION - Child brought to Australia

  • Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services & Zadeh [2017] FamCA 44

    02 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Where the children moved into the mother’s care in Australia following their removal from the paternal family pending investigation of allegations of physical abuse by New Zealand government authorities – Where there is a dispute as to the agreement which resulted in the children moving into the mother’s care – Where the Court finds the parties agreed for the children to move into the mother’s care in Australia on an indefinite basis – Where the Court finds the children were not habitually resident in New Zealand  – Where the Court finds that the children were not wrongfully retained in Australia by the mother – Where the Court would have found the “defences” of sub regulations 16(3)(a)(ii) and (c) made out by the mother – Where the Court would not have exercised its discretion to return the children to New Zealand – Application dismissed.

  • Lawson & Lawson [2017] FamCA 42

    02 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Where the State and Commonwealth Central Authorities withdrew from the proceedings – Where the father was joined as a party and pursues the return of the children to the United Kingdom – Where the parties travelled to Australia with the children and subsequently separated – Where there is a dispute as to whether the parties agreed to emigrate to Australia or live in Australia for a defined period of time – Where the Court finds the parties agreed to emigrate to Australia – Where the Court finds the children were not habitually resident in the United Kingdom – Where the Court finds that the children were not wrongfully retained in Australia by the mother – Where the Court would have found the “defence” of sub regulation 16(3)(a)(ii) made out by the mother – Where the Court would not have exercised its discretion to return the children to the United Kingdom – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother sought an order for costs against the State and Commonwealth Central Authorities – Where the final hearing had to be adjourned – Where regulation 7 precludes the Court from ordering costs against the Central Authority – Application dismissed.

  • Rivers & Rivers (No 2) [2017] FamCA 41

    24 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Respondent seeks payment of his costs on an indemnity basis – Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs on a party/party basis.

  • Bahar & Sohrab [2017] FamCA 40

    01 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY –Where a central inquiry is what should be included in the net pool of assets – Where both parties held substantial assets at the time of separation but the vast bulk of those assets are no longer there – Where both parties allege the other has failed to make a full and frank disclosure particularly in relation to how they applied cash resources after separation – Where the husband has significant assets available to him which he has alienated and secreted – Where the wife seeks a 65/35 split of assets including the value of the husband’s superannuation pension – Where the wife seeks to retain 100 per cent of the husband’s superannuation pension – Where the husband seeks orders that the parties net assets be divided equally with his superannuation to be excluded – Where the husband was involved in proceedings in the Supreme Court of the ACT which were a sham and an abuse of process orchestrated by the husband in breach of specific orders made freezing funds – Where based on contributions, the assets should be divided as to 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband primarily due to greater contributions being made on the wife’s behalf from sources outside the marriage – Where there should be a five per cent adjustment in the husband’s favour for s79(4)(d)-(g) considerations based upon, inter alia, the husband’s medical condition being more severe than the wife’s and the financial resource available to the wife arising out of her relationship with her siblings – Where orders are made for a 50/50 division of the assets including a partial splitting of the husband’s superannuation pension.

  • Stelzer & Wallace [2017] FamCA 39

    11 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – PROPERTY ORDERS – ALLOCATION PAYMENT & INTEREST CALCULATIONS – Application by wife seeking a declaration by the Court that husband is indebted to her in the amount of $652,980.73 as of the 9 September 2016 pursuant to Orders of the Court or in the alternative the wife seeks a declaration that the husband is indebted to her in the amount of $162,463.72 as of 9 September 2016 – Machinery Orders made to enable determination of the amount (if any) to be paid to the wife or repaid to the husband in accordance with the agreement and consequential orders

  • Dagher & Hamade [2017] FamCA 38

    01 Feb 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Mother and father are Iraqi citizens who parented twins whilst the father was studying in Australia – the mother is now separated from the father and she has administratively applied for protection visas for herself and the children and seeks orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the children live with her and she have sole parental responsibility – the father is studying in Australia and wishes to return to Iraq and is required to return to Iraq in late 2017 – in the absence of the mother returning to Iraq with him he seeks orders that the children live with him in Iraq –  allegations of violence and coercive and controlling behaviour – Best interest of children – Order that children live with the mother – Order that mother have sole parental responsibility for the children – Order that children spend time with the father.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Issue of passport – Orders made for the issue of passports for the children – Orders that children’s passports be lodged with the Court’s Registry. 

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Orders that children be placed on Airport Watch List until the age of 18 or as is otherwise ordered by a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or agreed in writing by both parents.

  • Millhouse & Mullens [2017] FamCA 37

    27 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INJUNCTION – where the Applicant seeks orders restraining the Respondent from dealing with the proceeds of sale of real property

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM – where the Applicant seeks orders for litigation funding

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – whether Applicant is unable to adequately support herself

  • Walker & Sully and Anor [2017] FamCA 35

    11 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where applicant, unrepresented, brings an unnecessary application and after warning from a judge to get advice, does not do so – where after a further adjournment, notice of discontinuance is filed but at a point where significant costs have been incurred – where it is just to make costs orders.

  • Jantic & Soula [2017] FamCA 34

    31 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – with whom the children live – where the father seeks an equal time arrangement  – where the father seeks equal shared parental responsibility – high level of conflict between the parties – inability of the parties to communicate – where the father demonstrates an inability to prioritise the children’s needs over his own – where the father has a history of aggressive, abusive and violent behaviour – consideration of the impact, if any, of the father’s mental health issues upon his ability to parent – where the mother has failed to support the children’s relationship with the father – where the mother is the children’s primary carer – equal time proposed by the father not in the children’s best interests – final orders made that the mother have sole parental responsibility subject to a requirement that she advise the father of any major decision to be made and consider any response received from him – final orders made that the children live with the mother and spend time with the father

  • Rivers & Rivers [2017] FamCA 33

    23 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Contravention – Where the Husband removed property from the former matrimonial home of his own volition – Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Application for enforcement seeking the return of property removed from the former matrimonial home – Application dismissed.

  • Bloomfield & Grainger and Anor [2017] FamCA 32

    27 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Legal professional privilege – Application by the Applicant seeking an order that the First Respondent produce documents over which he has claimed legal professional privilege – Application granted.

  • Gomez & Easton [2017] FamCA 31

    27 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the mother makes allegations of physical and sexual abuse of the children by the father – Where the mother believes the children have been harmed by the father – Where the mother changed her position to seek unsupervised time between the children and the father despite maintaining a belief that he has intentionally harmed the children and will continue to do so -  Where the mother alleges that the father has stalked her, hacked her phone and computer and repeatedly broken into her home and motor vehicle – Where the father denies all allegations made by the mother – Where the mother’s allegations are rejected as groundless – Where the mother poses an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the children – Where the children are to live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother.

  • Meldrick & Meldrick [2017] FamCA 28

    23 Jan 2017

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

  • Farina & Naima [2017] FamCA 27

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting orders – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to have face to face time with the father on specific dates and times – Application declined.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting orders – Application for an injunction restraining the father from entering, remaining at or attending at the mother’s home, the child’s school and the child’s extracurricular activities – Application granted.

  • Ezard & Ezard [2017] FamCA 26

    13 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – International holiday travel – Application granted.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for discharge of the arrears of spouse maintenance –Application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – DISCLOSURE –  Husband to provide financial documents.

  • Cassidy and Anor [2017] FamCA 25

    23 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Application for leave to commence proceedings – where the child was conceived through donor insemination – where the donor is unknown - where the donor has no parental rights – application granted.

  • Barton & Barton [2017] FamCA 24

    11 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – BEST INTERESTS – Application by the father that the child travel unaccompanied to the United Kingdom to spend time him – Where existing interim orders provide for the child’s travel but where that travel has not recently occurred – Where the father lives in the United Kingdom – Where final orders sought by the father include a proposal that the child live with him in the United Kingdom – Where the child is of an age where her views are relevant – Where the child has expressed a view against such travel in the past – Where a level of caution should be exercised in circumstances where the child’s current views have not been ascertained by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – No orders made as to the child’s travel – Order made for an updating single expert report.

  • Tiernan & Tiernan [2017] FamCA 23

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Enforcement – whether orders for transfer of a farm included rights (otherwise jointly owned) to access water for farm purposes – wife argued judge did not include water rights – no clear reasons in judgment – order made to comply – s 106A application granted. 

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS and COSTS ENFORCEMENT

  • Sorrensen & Sorrensen [2017] FamCA 22

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs order – Where the wife was wholly successful in her application for enforcement – Where the husband is ordered to pay the wife’s costs in a fixed amount

  • Kent & Kent [2017] FamCA 21

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Where the husband has commenced proceedings in Papua New Guinea – Where the wife has commenced property proceedings in Australia – Where the parties have assets in both jurisdictions – Where the husband seeks a stay of proceedings in Australia – Where Australia is not a clearly inappropriate forum – Application for stay dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION – Where the wife seeks to restrain the husband from continuing proceedings in Papua New Guinea – Where the proceedings will concern the same issues being litigated in Australia – Where an anti-suit injunction is necessary to protect the integrity of this Court’s processes – Application for anti-suit injunction granted.

  • Jarvis & Beaumont [2017] FamCA 20

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Magellan – Best interests – Whether the child has been sexually abused by her father – where the allegations of sexual abuse have been ‘substantiated’ by child protection authorities – where evidence of the child displays sexualised behaviour – whether the father presents an unacceptable risk to the child in his unsupervised care.

  • Hurley & Hurley (No 2) [2017] FamCA 19

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – Section 44(3) - Where the husband is bankrupt but consents to the wife instituting the proceedings for a property settlement well out of time over vested bankruptcy property -  Where leave is not needed if the parties to the marriage consent - Where the bankrupt's trustee has no standing to argue that leave is necessary

  • Hurley & Hurley [2017] FamCA 18

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – LEAVE to serve orders and judgement on non-parties.

  • Husserl & Mullet [2017] FamCA 17

    10 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – consent orders – where the registrar did not have power to make the orders because they were out of time – where the parties could not justify their orders – agreement not to proceed.

  • Grollo & Bilson [2017] FamCA 16

    10 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Bifurcation where interim property issues are pending as a result of a reserved judgment – best interests of children for expeditious conclusion of parenting issues – query whether one judge should alter a docketed case of another.

  • Cunningham & Cunningham [2017] FamCA 15

    20 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where documents were produced by the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services under subpoena – Where the documents were provided in redacted form – Where redaction of notifiers’ identity remained in place – Where some redaction of the particulars of the notifications were removed and copies provided to the legal representatives of the parties

  • Klearchos & Klearchos & Ors [2017] FamCA 14

    19 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – Application by the fifth respondent for summary dismissal of the wife’s claim against the fifth respondent pursuant to s 106B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the fifth respondent’s case is as to the adequacy of the wife’s pleadings – Where the fifth respondent can be under no misapprehension as to the wife’s case – Where the fifth respondent has not established that the wife’s case has no reasonable likelihood of success – Where the fifth respondent has not established that the wife has no reasonable likelihood of establishing that at the relevant time a property settlement order between husband and wife was reasonably anticipated – Where there are serious factual and legal questions to be determined at trial – Application for summary dismissal dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – Application by the wife to extend an injunction affecting the fifth respondent – Where the fifth respondent was not a party to the proceedings when the injunction was made – Where the wife has established that an injunction is reasonably necessary to effect a division of property between the husband and wife – Where it is just and convenient to extend the injunction – Order made to extend the injunction to 30 days following the conclusion of the proceedings.

  • Exton & Fahey [2017] FamCA 13

    19 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the children should live – Where leading up to final hearing the children reside in separate households – Where the children have a meaningful relationship with both parents – Where the mother proposes the children remain separated and the father proposes both children live with him – Where the father fears the bond between the children will be lost if they remain separated – Where the Family Consultant shares the father’s fear –  Where the parents live a three to four hour drive apart – Where both children have been diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum – Where evidence supports the mother has physically restrained if not punished the eldest child – Where the father has been observing the child and formulating a plan for assessment – Where the father can stay calm and in turn calm the children when they are misbehaving or upset – Where the mother cannot regulate her own emotions enough to assist the children in regulating their own – Where the mother felt burdened when caring for both children and provided differential treatment – Decided the children need to be protected from this differential treatment – Decided an order for the children to live together will mitigate the chance of further applications by the parties – Ordered the children live with the father.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – Where both parties agree they have communicated poorly – Where there is an Apprehended Violence Order in place for protection of the father and his current partner – Where the current partner is fearful of the mother – Decided sole parental responsibility should vest in the parent with which the children reside – Ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility.
  • Preiss & Preiss [2017] FamCA 12

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where the husband seeks a coercive order for the wife to move with him to Israel to enable the continuation of his relationship with their seven year old child – Application refused because of lack of supportive evidence to make such a drastic order.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where there was uncertainty about the nature of overseas pension funds to be treated as property – where the husband’s family had made what he claimed were loans to both parties but that was denied by the wife – where contribution factors considered – where the husband’s health was a factor for the purposes of s 75(2) but so was the extra responsibility for their child’s support carried by the wife.
  • Hagarty & Bevan [2017] FamCA 11

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the child should live – Where the mother accepts she had past mental health concerns – Where the mother has long since stabilised – Where the maternal grandmother lives with the mother and is strongly supportive of her daughter – Where the father supports the mother living with the maternal grandmother for support  – Where the father concedes the mother was the primary carer – Where the father has the capacity to care for the child full time and facilitate the relationship between the mother and child – Where the child is settled in the current arrangement living with the mother – Where the benefit to the child will be derived from stability – Where the opinion of the single expert is for the current arrangement to continue to provide stability –  Decided maintaining the current orders for the purpose of stability outweigh any benefit of a change of residence – Ordered the child live with the mother

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – Where the mother proposes equal shared parental responsibility as a final order –Where both parties have capacity to meet the child’s needs – Where the father is conscious of the mother’s past mental illness and supportive of that – Where time with the father will spend with the child will be essential to provide the mother a regular break from parenting – Ordered that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility
  • Harty & Harty [2017] FamCA 10

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Discovery – where litigant in person has confusing and convoluted application the order in which, are not supported by evidence – application dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTNENACE – s 83 variation application where husband consented to orders – not sufficient evidence to justify – application dismissed.

  • Fourier & Anand [2017] FamCA 9

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders – where allegations of violence to children and each parent by the other – where evidence needs testing but some inferences can be drawn – where shared care orders made pending expert investigation and reporting.

  • Camoes & Blizzard [2017] FamCA 8

    18 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – Urgent injunction restraining entitlement already ordered under a property settlement where application to vary orders is now pending – Injunction granted.

  • Gibbs & Gibbs & Ors [2017] FamCA 7

    17 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – CASE STATED – where the applicant seeks a case be stated to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia – where the proposed case stated relates to a claim against his former solicitors – where those solicitors drafted a financial agreement which was subsequently set aside by the Family Court on the basis that it was uncertain in its terms – where the case stated relates to what defences might be open to the solicitors in defending a negligence claim – whether the solicitors raising a defence that the financial agreement was not uncertain would amount to an abuse of process – where the application for a case stated is dismissed.

  • Rabkin & Edsall [2017] FamCA 6

    16 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - Interim – Where the applicant seeks litigation funding – Whether the respondent has access to funds unavailable to the applicant -  Whether the discretion to pay a sum of money in interim proceedings should be exercised – Where there is no legal basis for the exercise of discretion - Where the application is dismissed.

  • Mohan & Modi [2017] FamCA 5

    13 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – stay – where the mother seeks to stay the proceedings commenced by the father in the Family Court of Australia – where proceedings relating to the child were finalised in India in November 2016 – whether Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – where the proceedings are stayed.

  • Hilder & Jessup [2017] FamCA 4

    13 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Where there are three children aged 16, 11 and nine – Where the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father – Where the parents agree that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the children except in relation to their names – Where there has been family violence  perpetrated by the father – Where two of the children have intellectual disabilities and are home schooled by the mother – Where there would be some benefit for the children in developing a meaningful relationship with the father but where that would involve risk – Where the mother has a genuine fear of the father – Where the mother’s anxiety about the father is properly based – Where there is a need to protect the mother from paternal intrusion – Where the risks involved with the children having any contact with the father are too great and do not align with their best interests – Orders made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children except in relation to their names – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend no time, have no contact, nor communicate with the father.

  • Groth & Banks [2017] FamCA 3

    13 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation –Where the mother seeks to relocate intrastate with the parties’ six year old child – Where the father opposes the application and seeks to restrain the mother’s relocation to a certain distance or alternatively change the child’s residence – Where the Court finds it is in the child’s best interests to relocate with the mother – Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied – Where the Court finds it is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable for the child to spend time with the father – Where the parties’ respective proposals lacked detail concerning the practicalities of the child spending time with the father upon relocating – Orders made for the child to spend each alternate weekend with the father and the parties to share the travel required to facilitate changeover – the child to spend time with the father on special occasions and for half of school holidays.

  • Hillier & Olly [2017] FamCA 2

    11 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother makes an application for indemnity costs – Where the mother submits that the conduct of the father caused her to incur additional costs – application dismissed

  • Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services & Martinez [2017] FamCA 1

    06 Jan 2017

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Form 2 Application – Where the application seeks the return of the child to El Salvador where the father resides – Where the child was habitually resident in El Salvador before his removal - Where the father has rights of custody and was exercising such rights prior to the child being retained in Australia – Where there is no grave risk to the child in returning to El Salvador – Where there is no exercise of discretion - Where orders are made for the child’s return.

  • Maple & Niu [2016] FamCA 1160

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interlocutory – With whom a child lives – Child’s views – Where there were three sets of previous final parenting orders imposed upon the parties – Where the father seeks reversal of the last set of orders on an interim basis – Where the child is 14 years old and her maturity is commensurate with her biological age – Where the child’s views are the most significant feature of the evidence – Where the child is keenly aware of the parental conflict – Decided that limited weight should be placed on the views expressed by the child to the parents – Where the child independently expressed the desire to live with the father to other impartial persons, being a general practitioner, a counsellor, and a family consultant – Where there is no guarantee the child will abide by orders of the Court – Where the depth and authenticity of the child’s views has not been fully tested – Decided that allowing the child to have greater influence over her own life may reprieve her from the parental conflict – Ordered that all former parenting orders in relation to the child are suspended

  • Burton & Slater [2016] FamCA 1159

    05 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Where the mother seeks leave to file an affidavit by a psychiatrist adducing adversarial expert evidence – Where the mother has not yet consulted the psychiatrist – Where the mother’s counsel is still unsure whether the expert evidence will be necessary – Concluded the exercise of discretion under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) will not be left to mother’s lawyers – Application of r 15.42 which provides for a single expert to be appointed conjointly by the parties and Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where no submission was made why the mother should be permitted to call evidence from an adversarial expert in preference to a single expert – Ordered the application is dismissed

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Family Report – Where the mother seeks rejection of the existing Family Report from the body of evidence before the Court – Where counsel for the mother submits that the Family Report is unfairly prejudicial pursuant to s 135(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the opinions of the Family Consultant are contrary to the relief sought by the mother  – Where such opinions were not patently reached or expressed in an unfair way – Concluded the mother can cross-examine the Family Consultant about the perceived shortcomings of her opinions – Ordered the application is dismissed
  • Kartal & Dutsanee [2016] FamCA 1158

    16 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the husband for a dollar for dollar costs order – Where the costs power is a broad one – Where it is in the interests of justice that the parties each have access to legal representation in the proceedings – Where it is appropriate to make a dollar for dollar costs order in favour of the husband for future costs only.

  • Norris & Matthews [2016] FamCA 1157

    09 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate with the child to New Zealand – Where the interim application is the mother’s final relief brought forward – Where the issues raised by the mother do not warrant an interim hearing – Where a determination regarding relocation will be made at final hearing – Where permitting relocation on an interim basis may result in the child having to relocate back to Australia on a final basis – Decided there is no need for an interim hearing – Decided the status quo should not be upset – Ordered the mother’s Application in a Case and the father’s Response are dismissed

  • Matthews & Norris [2016] FamCA 1156

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Injunction – Where the father seeks an injunction restraining the mother from removing the child from Australia – Where, two months before, the mother sought interim relief enabling her to relocate with the child to New Zealand and her interim application was dismissed – Where the mother again seeks orders enabling her to take the child to India and New Zealand – Where the father perceives India to be dangerous and is concerned the mother will not return with the child if she is permitted to travel to New Zealand – Ordered that the parties are restrained from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia

  • Taha & Taha [2016] FamCA 1155

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where consent orders were made resolving most of the outstanding issues – Whether existing arrangements for religious holidays should be varied to allow the children to spend an hour with their paternal family during celebrations – Whether the existing changeover location should be changed – Orders made as sought by the father  –  No variation to changeover – Whether the father should contribute to the children’s private school fees – Where the mother has been paying the school fees and is reliant upon social security benefits and child support  – Where the Court finds it is in the children’s best interests to continue attending their school and for the father to contribute to half of the fees.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband has gambled the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Whether a superannuation splitting order should be made in favour of the wife – Whether the wife should receive spouse maintenance each month for ten years – Where the Court finds the wife is unable to support herself adequately – Where the Court is unable to find that the husband has the capacity to pay the amount sought by the wife – Where the Court orders the husband to pay a lesser sum and for a period of three years – Superannuation splitting order made as sought by the wife.
  • Crand & Crand [2016] FamCA 1154

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Application by the husband to discharge orders for him to pay interim spouse maintenance to the wife – Whether the husband has established a sufficient change in his circumstances pursuant to section 83 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where there is a lack of clarity as to the husband’s financial circumstances – Where the husband’s previously profitable company has been placed under external administration – Where the husband is now in a role of paid employment – Interim spouse maintenance order varied.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Where the husband seeks a discharge of a child support departure order and a stay of the collection of any arrears – Whether the husband has established a sufficient change in his circumstances pursuant to section 129(3) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – Interim child support departure order varied – Application for stay dismissed – Where the wife seeks that the husband’s share of monies due to be received be lodged in the trust account of his solicitor on account of arrears of child support and spouse maintenance – Orders made.
  • Blizzard & Camoes [2016] FamCA 1153

    07 Jun 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by the mother for an expedited final hearing – where final judgment dismissing the mother’s application to relocate with the children to Country I was delivered six months ago – mother hospitalised for mental health issues following judgment – submitted that  the mother’s health issues will impact upon her ability to care for the children – application opposed by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where the mother’s mental health was an issue raised at the previous final hearing – where the mother’s treating psychiatrist reports an improvement in her condition – application refused

  • Curtin & Curtin [2016] FamCA 1152

    01 Mar 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Application by the father alleging that the mother has not complied with orders that the parties forthwith make application to a contact centre to be assessed for suitability for the provision of its services – where neither party complied strictly with the order – where the father failed to serve the application on the mother in accordance with r 7.03 – no flagrant challenge to the authority of the court –application dismissed

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application by the mother for costs arising out of and incidental to the contempt application – where the father was wholly unsuccessful in bringing his contempt application – where the father failed to effect service of the application on the mother in compliance with the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – financial positions of the parties considered – interims orders made that the father pay the mother’s costs in a fixed sum
  • Hikal-Aquita & Aquita [2016] FamCA 1151

    07 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim proceedings – where father seeks to take children to Lebanon for holiday – where mother has fears that children will not return – where mother opposes the children travelling – where parties separated under the one roof – where no present parenting orders  - where not appropriate for children to travel – orders made restraining travel and placing children on watch list

  • Boston & Boston (No 4) [2016] FamCA 1150

    16 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – determination of costs – where consideration is given to whether the circumstances justify the making of an order for costs – where consideration is given to s 117(2A) factors – where no order is made for costs.

  • Sukuraman & Kemal [2016] FamCA 1149

    04 Apr 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Orders – Where the mother seeks to travel with the child to Country E for one month – Where the mother wishes to permanently relocate with the child to Country E – Where the mother is seeking an order the child spend no time with the father – Where the father is seeking an order the child spend substantial time with him – Where the final hearing is expedited – Application dismissed

  • Loomis & Thurston [2016] FamCA 1148

    15 Feb 2016

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Subpoena – Where the husband seeks to use subpoenaed material produced in property proceedings, in a child support appeal matter before the Federal Circuit Court – Where the husband would have to seek leave from the Federal Circuit Court to adduce fresh evidence – Application granted

  • Lawson & Hill [2016] FamCA 1147

    23 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility but for the child to live with the mother – Where the father seeks orders in relation to time with child beginning with supervised time and progressing to unsupervised time – Where the mother seeks an order for sole parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks an order for the father to spend time with the child once per month at a supervision agency – Where the father suffers from at least one serious mental disorder – Where the father’s mental status problem is unlikely to be significant improved by future treatment – Where a history of complaints and withdrawal of services have been made by the those agencies providing supervision of the father’s time with the child due to the father’s inappropriate behaviour – Where there is an unacceptable risk of the child’s time with his father being harmful to him unless that time is properly supervised – Where there is a high level of conflict between the parties and the father has engaged in family violence – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply – Where it is in the child’s best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for making decisions about major long term issues but she is to notify the father about the implementation of any decision that she makes – Where the father’s application for the child’s name to be changed is dismissed – Where the father’s application for the child’s school to be changed is dismissed – Where the father seeks orders that the child attend a program where he will learn about Judaism – Where orders are made for the mother to take the child to this program at a Synagogue closer to her place of residence – Where orders are made for the father to spend supervised time with the child for four hours per month.

  • Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte (No 5) [2016] FamCA 1146

    23 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife seeks an order that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis in respect of the proceedings initiated by her seeking orders for the return of the two eldest children to Australia – Where an order is made for the husband to pay the wife’s cots on a party/party basis.

  • Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte and Anor [2016] FamCA 1145

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where an application is made for the appointment of a case guardian for the two elder children and that they be granted leave to intervene in the parenting proceedings – Whether the requirements of rules 6.08(1) and (2) and rules 6.09(b) and (c) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) are satisfied in this case – Where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the applicant and the father – Where the requirements of rule 6.08(2) are satisfied – Where the requirements of rules 6.09(b) and (c) are not satisfied – Where the application for the appointment of a case guardian for the elder children is dismissed.

  • Worth & Worth (No 4) [2016] FamCA 1144

    27 Sep 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Whether the two children should spend time with the father during his stay in Australia  - Where the father has returned to Australia from the UK for a case – management hearing in this Court – Where the father has been absent for ten months  – Where the son has autism on the extreme end of the spectrum – Where it is not in the son’s best interests to spend time with his father in the circumstances – Where it is in the daughter’s best interests to spend a small amount of time with the father and paternal grandmother during the father’s time in Australia – Where the father is permitted to Skype the daughter while he is outside the Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Prentice & Prentice [2016] FamCA 1143

    22 Nov 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Where the applicant father suffers from Bipolar Affective Disorder – Where the father’s mental health has deteriorated resulting in his incarceration – Where the father was transported from prison to a mental health facility and has since been transferred back to prison though still separate from other prisoners – Where the father’s solicitor has filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act and informed the Court that the father no longer wishes to press his application for a final parenting order – Where it is in the children’s best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility.

  • Newman & Anor and Handke [2016] FamCA 1142

    26 Sep 2016

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

  • McMillan & McMillan (No 3) [2016] FamCA 1141

    30 Sep 2016

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT WARRANT – Application to stay warrant – Whether the Enforcement Warrant over the husband’s property should be stayed – Whether an injunction should be ordered against the wife for the removal of the writ over the husband’s property – Where the encumbered property is required to borrow funds for the payment of council rates – Where the balance of convenience favours the matter’s determination at trial.

  • Alea and Anor and Unknown [2016] FamCA 1140

    18 Apr 2016

    FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to permit adoption proceedings – Where the identity and whereabouts of the biological father is unknown – Where the child is already 17 years of age – Order that leave be granted

  • Acker and Anor & Denniss [2016] FamCA 1139

    04 Apr 2016

    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

  • Angliss & Angliss (No 3) [2016] FamCA 1138

    26 Sep 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Whether applications contained in the wife’s Response to the husband’s Application in a Case should be adjourned – Where the husband has not had the time to read and formulate a response to the orders sought – Where the orders could not be heard and determined in accordance with procedural fairness.

  • Re: Anita [2016] FamCA 1137

    19 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Where the applicants are the parents of a child with gender dysphoria – Where the applicants seek a declaration that the child is competent to authorise Stage 2 treatment – Where the child’s medical practitioners support the child commencing Stage 2 treatment and agree that the child is competent to make such a decision – Whether the child is Gillick competent – Where the Court finds the child is competent to make her own decision as to Stage 2 treatment.

  • Hill & Spiteri [2016] FamCA 1136

    24 Oct 2016

    FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where a declaration of nullity is sought – Where the applicant was already married to a third party at the time of her marriage to the respondent in Australia – Where the respondent was not lawfully entitled to marry the applicant – Where marriage between the parties declared null and void.

  • Budiarta & Zavahir and Anor [2016] FamCA 1135

    12 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant sought to join the other party to the proceedings – Where the application to join was unsuccessful – Where the other party seeks indemnity costs – Where the application for costs is adjourned for further consideration at the conclusion of the property adjustment proceedings

  • Harrington & Harrington and Anor [2016] FamCA 1134

    30 Nov 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where proceedings have previously been undefended by the mother – where the father filed an application in a case for the return of the children or alternatively a recovery order – where the children have been living with their older step-sister – where the step-sister became an intervenor – where interim consent orders were made for the children to remain with the step-sister and spend time with the father.

  • McCloy & McCloy and Anor [2016] FamCA 1133

    21 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCUTORY – Spouse Maintenance – Where the filed applications and responses have been superseded by events – Where an urgent application for spouse maintenance is raised – Where the husband objects on both the period of limitation having expired and not having adequate time to prepare a response – Decided the court should balance the inconvenience to the husband against the possible outcome to the wife – Where one possible outcome is the wife having to sell her house – Where inconvenience to the husband can be cured by giving the matter a future listing date with parties to file and serve relevant material – Where the future listing date will allow the matter to be properly reviewed – Ordered the husband pay the wife $4,250 per month as spouse maintenance

  • Sorrensen & Sorrensen [2016] FamCA 1132

    14 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Enforcement – Subsequent to final orders for property settlement – Where the husband failed to comply and the wife sought enforcement orders – Where the hearing of the application for enforcement orders was adjourned to allow the husband time to comply with the orders – Where the husband still failed to comply 

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs order – Where the husband is ordered to pay the wife’s costs in an amount to be fixed
  • Stanley & Stanley [2016] FamCA 1130

    14 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application by father to spend time with children – History of long term family violence - impact on mother and children – father in denial about the violence – whether the children are unacceptable risk in the future care of the father – Orders that father spend no time with or communicate with the children.

  • Verboom & Verboom [2016] FamCA 1128

    23 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING

  • Sanderson & Sanderson (No 2) [2016] FamCA 1127

    23 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING – with whom a child spends time – interim orders.

  • Sanderson & Sanderson [2016] FamCA 1126

    09 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for restraint

  • Ferro & Kopel (No 2) [2016] FamCA 1124

    23 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appeal set aside final orders and directed rehearing of parenting case – where the successful appellant desires to use findings otherwise unchallenged of the trial judge – where the Full Court remitter does not order any restrictions on the retrial – where s 69ZX(3) is basis of application to rely on previous findings – application refused because of risk of injustice by fettering of discretion.

  • Illgen & Yike (No 4) [2016] FamCA 1123

    14 Sep 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING – previous orders discharged

  • Illgen & Yike (No 3) [2016] FamCA 1122

    15 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN: Interim orders – child to spend overnight time with the father

  • Camoes & Blizzard (No. 2) [2016] FamCA 1121

    23 Nov 2016

    FAMILY LAW – Extempore ruling – urgent application by father – where mother has failed to return from Germany with the children – where father seeks the early release of monies to be held by solicitors for the mother as security by way of interim parenting orders together with additional monies for costs to make arrangements for the return of children to Australia – where father seeks to injunct mother’s portion of proceeds of sale pursuant to final property orders made arising from a de facto financial cause.

  • Worth & Worth (No. 3) [2016] FamCA 1120

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility - Whether allegations of fact made in the mother’s affidavit should be struck out – Whether the affidavits of the mother’s brother and friend should be struck out - Where specific findings of fact made by a Magistrate in proceedings concerning allegations of domestic violence – Where the Magistrate determined the father had not committed acts of domestic violence.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim – Whether the father should be permitted to access $175,000 held in trust – Where the father wishes to use the funds to return from the UK for the purpose of securing employment  - Where the father adduced little evidence to assist the Court in its determination.

  • Reagan & Wentworth [2016] FamCA 1118

    21 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Orders – Where the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services has intervened - Where the child attends school – With whom the child spends time – Where a change in circumstances is in the best interests of the child.

  • Perriera & Chandra [2016] FamCA 1117

    19 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply – Where the mother departed Australia leaving  the children in the care of a maternal uncle  –  Where the mother has not sought to communicate with the children  –  Children live with the father.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable – Where neither party had property of any significant value at the time of marriage – Where the husband met their financial needs – Each party solely entitled to retain all property in their possession or control.

  • Thompson & Platt [2016] FamCA 1116

    22 Dec 2016

    FAMILY LAW – BIAS AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – where the mother’s application is dismissed – where mother seeks Family Report writer be discharged and a new Family Report writer be appointed – where mother justifies those orders as the Family Report writer has demonstrated actual bias against her – where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias – where there is no actual bias.

  • Backford & Backford and Anor (No 2) [2016] FamCA 206

    01 Apr 2016

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Parental responsibility – Best interests of the children – Proceedings involving five children and three households – Where the proceedings were reopened after judgment was reserved – Unacceptable risk of harm posed by a child sex offender associated with the mother – Proposals to mitigate risk – Benefit of a meaningful relationship – Need to protect the children from harm, particularly harm from being subjected to sexual abuse – Nature of the children’s relationships with the parents and each other – Significant practical difficulty involved in spending time with the other parent – Concerns about each of the parent’s capacities – Aboriginal culture – Orders least likely to lead to further proceedings – Best interests of the children for the fathers to hold sole parental responsibility.