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.

  • Millbank & Millbank [2021] FamCA 80

    24 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – equal shared or sole parental responsibility – family violence – sole parental responsibility ordered.

  • Emmet & Emmet [2021] FamCA 78

    23 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – no contact order – entered into by consent.

  • Garrety & Steyn [2021] FamCA 67

    23 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – CONTRAVENTION – SANCTIONS – Application by the father alleging four contraventions of final parenting orders – Where there are two children aged 11 and 9 – Where the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that three of the contraventions are established – Where the mother failed to establish reasonable excuse – Where the mother is sanctioned under Subdivision E of Division 13A Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for one count – Where the two remaining contraventions are sanctioned under Subdivision F of Division 13A Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) because they occurred while the mother was already serving good behaviour bonds in relation to proven contraventions in earlier proceedings – Where three good behaviour bonds are imposed upon the mother and the bonds are served cumulatively – Where no orders as to costs.

  • Farina & Lofts (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 75

    22 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Dispute over payment of an expert report – Where in the substantive proceedings, a single expert was initially engaged by two parties to provide a valuation and additional parties were subsequently joined to proceedings – Where a dispute arose as to which party was liable for satisfying the outstanding invoice – Where it is found that the first respondent is liable for the payment of the invoice as between the parties to the substantive proceedings.

  • Paintal & Paintal (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 76

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – children – oral application to vary current interim orders – best interests of the child – child’s right to participate in her culture – order made.

  • Bloxham & Bloxham (No. 3) [2021] FamCA 70

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – Where application for leave to rely on affidavit of expert at trial – Where affidavit not by appointed Single Expert – Where no application for appointment of Single Expert – Where discussion of applicable principles – Where application dismissed.

  • Robinson & Bale (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 66

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – DECLARATION – where a declaration is made pursuant to s 69VA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the court is satisfied that the mother has been served – where the matter proceeded undefended – where the unchallenged evidence of the father is accepted – where it is declared that the applicant is the father of the child – where it is ordered that the mother and the child return to the Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Delgado & Soto [2021] FamCA 65

    19 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision – where the wife seeks an extension of the time to file an application to review the decision of a Registrar making final property orders by consent – where this is opposed by the husband – where the final orders have been implemented save for one final payment – however the husband does not press for the final payment to be made – where the business the wife retained pursuant to the final orders has less value due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – where the question arises as to whether the application would have been filed in the first place if the pandemic had not occurred – where the wife has also filed an application seeking that the final orders be set aside pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the wife’s case conflates the issues – where any potential outcome in favour of the wife would be likely negated by the costs of the proceedings – where the wife has other remedies and would not suffer an injustice if the time for filing her application is not extended – where the wife’s application to extend the time for filing an application to review the decision of the Registrar is dismissed.

  • Vail & Vail (No. 3) [2021] FamCA 59

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim property – whether an independent accountant be appointed to prepare financial statements and tax returns – whether a receiver be appointed to manage the various commercial entities and assets of the parties – whether the wife be paid spousal maintenance in addition to that already ordered – whether the wife be reappointed as director of one of the parties’ joint companies – whether there be interim property distribution – access to joint bank accounts – whether a single joint expert be appointed to value the parties’ real estate – whether restrictions be imposed on further investments – whether drawings be permitted from the parties’ joint assets and/or capital – various injunctive orders sought – injunctive relief ordered – interim applications otherwise dismissed.

  • Fielding & Mason [2021] FamCA 52

    18 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application to dismiss Independent Children’s Lawyer – Whether Independent Children’s Lawyer has acted independently – Whether Independent Children’s Lawyer has acted in the best interests of the children – Where no basis found for dismissal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Application dismissed.

  • Scott & Scott [2021] FamCA 50

    17 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW - COSTS – COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVERS – Interlocutory Application – Where the applicant seeks an order authorising the use of funds held by a corporate trustee to pay a judgment debt owed to former receivers by the respondents – Where the former receivers were appointed by the Court to manage the property of the respondents – Where the Court lacks power to authorise or direct the use of funds by a corporate trustee to discharge a judgment debt owed personally by the respondents – Application dismissed.

    COSTS – COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVERS – Where the applicant seeks an order authorising the use of funds held by a corporate trustee to pay fees and expenses incurred during his receivership – Where the applicant was appointed to specifically manage the property of the corporate trustee – Where the applicant contends he holds an equitable lien over the assets – Where there is no impediment to the applicant’s use of the resources to satisfy approved fees and expenses – Ordered the applicant may recover the sum from the property of the corporate trustee.

    COSTS – Where the applicant seeks costs of and incidental to the proceedings – Where there is disagreement over the assessment of those costs – Order made reserving the question of costs for four months.

  • Fung & Forbes [2021] FamCA 42

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property settlement in relation to marriage – Valuation of property – Where the parties are in dispute over the valuation of various assets – Where the applicant alleges that the respondent has hidden assets in either Australia, overseas or in a Superannuation Fund – Where it is just and equitable to alter the legal and equitable interests of the parties – Where the applicant has failed to prove that the respondent has hidden assets – Where the property pool, including Superannuation, is found to be valued at a total of $146,588 – Where the respondent is ordered to pay the applicant $88,000 over two equal instalments by way of property settlement.

    FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Whether the applicant has the capacity to support herself – Whether the respondent has the capacity to pay spousal maintenance – Where the arrears of spousal maintenance will be reduced to $16,000 and the respondent is ordered to pay spousal maintenance of $745 per week to the applicant.

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Contravention – Whether the husband has contravened the order made on 15 May 2018 by failing to pay the instalment due under the order – Where the respondent says he could not afford to make the payment – Where the respondent is found to have contravened the order without reasonable excuse and will be required to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for two years including complying with the order finalising the proceedings.

  • Lambard & Lambard (No. 4) [2021] FamCA 47

    02 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of an adversarial expert – Where the mother seeks permission to tender a report and adduce evidence from an additional expert – Whether the criteria in Rule 15.49 of the Family Law Rules 2004 have been met – Application dismissed – Where leave is granted to provide documents to a shadow expert – Adjournment of final hearing granted to allow for single experts to confer and the parties to exercise their rights under the Rules to ask questions of the single expert and seek clarification.

  • Covington & Covington (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 24

    27 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay application – Where the mother seeks a stay pending appeal of final parenting orders made by consent – Where final parenting orders provide for equal shared parental responsibility, for the child to live with the mother and spend substantial time with the father, for the child to be vaccinated, to commence mainstream schooling, to obtain a passport and that the father be permitted to involve the child in the practice of his religion subject to certain constraints – Where the mother submits that she did not give valid consent to the orders made by consent as she was subject to pressure from her legal representatives at the time – Where the mother further submits that the child has a Constitutional right not to be vaccinated and that no one will be harmed if there is a stay of the orders, and that if the orders are not stayed and the father proceeds to vaccinate the child, the child may run away and this would be antithetical for to her best interests – Where the father submits that the final orders are in the best interests of the child and the father is entitled to act in accordance with those orders, that the mother’s prospects on appeal are weak, that the mother’s actions suggest that her bona fides should be called into question and that to stay these orders would undermine the Court’s process – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer also submits that the mother’s application for a stay should be dismissed – orders made dismissing the mother’s application for a stay.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father seeks orders pursuant to a reservation of liberty to apply to facilitate the implementation of the final orders particularly in relation to the child’s attendance at primary school, vaccinations, obtaining a passport for the child and imposing certain injunctions on the mother – Where the mother’s behaviour in resisting the implementation of the existing orders and evidence that she has been involving the child in the proceedings supports the making of such orders – orders made to facilitate the implementation of the existing orders.

  • Tarelli & Langley (No. 5) [2021] FamCA 26

    22 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Where the father seeks a stay of final parenting and property orders pending the determination of an appeal – Consideration of the relevant principals relating to a stay – Where the stay is granted.

  • Gyde & Britton [2021] FamCA 43

    15 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – ORDERS – Variation – Where final orders in relation to property settlement were made in 2000 – Where West & Green orders were made in relation to the superannuation interests of the parties – Where the parties seek to set aside the order in relation to superannuation and seek a splitting order in lieu thereof – Where the final orders were made prior to the commencement of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001 (Cth) – Where the order sought cannot be made by consent – Consideration of when an order can be varied or set aside – Where the parties’ superannuation funds have changed – Where it is impracticable for the parties to comply with the order and it is just and equitable for it to be set aside – Orders.

  • Tarelli & Langley (No. 4) [2020] FamCA 1095

    18 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where matter was remitted by the Full Court for re-hearing – Risk to child in either parent’s care – Assessment of least worst risk to the child – Mother primary carer of child for first four and a half years until the Department was granted sole parental responsibility for the child by Court order in 2017 and child was removed from the mother’s care and placed into the father’s care– Where the father has pleaded guilty to three charges of common assault against the mother in mid-2020 and has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment – Findings the mother was subjected to violence perpetrated by the father during and post the relationship – Where the mother suffers from complex PTSD and is unable to spend time with the child whilst he remains in the care of the father – Where the father does not admit any violence towards the mother – Where the mother has engaged multiple health professionals for assistance – Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted – Orders made that it is in the best interests of the child to transition to the sole care of the mother and spend supervised time with the father and time weekly with his sister as this is the only order that will permit him to have a relationship with both of his parents.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where it is appropriate to assess the property on an asset-by-asset basis – Where the mother and her mother made the overwhelming initial and ongoing financial contributions to the acquisition, maintenance and conservation of the Suburb C property – Where the father’s contribution to the Suburb C property in paying the mortgage 12 months post separation and ongoing rates and taxes is outweighed by his retention of joint assets being a redundancy and the first home owner’s grant – Where the father has assets overseas which he failed to value and to which the mother made no contribution together with superannuation in Australia – Where the mother’s contribution to the Suburb C property is assessed at 90% – Where there is a nexus between the violence perpetrated upon the mother by the father and her current incapacity to work into the future – Where the mother will have full time care of the child  –  Mother’s future needs assessed at 10% under s 90SF(3) of the Act – Orders made for father to transfer his interest in the former matrimonial home to the mother – Father to retain his overseas assets and his superannuation.

  • Fonda & Colton [2020] FamCA 1085

    04 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application by husband for a property settlement – Valuation of husband’s business – Superannuation – Waste – Add-backs – Short marriage – No children of the marriage – Parties’ contributions during the course of their relationship assessed as equal – No adjustments made – Orders that the parties be declared the owners of the property in their respective names, possession or control – Order that Registry Manager refer the matter to the Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office for consideration as to whether any laws of Australia have been broken - Application otherwise dismissed.

  • Fawcett & Mahajan [2021] FamCA 53

    16 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the father seeks that mother pay his costs on an indemnity basis – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where circumstances do not justify a departure from the usual rule that each party bears their own costs – Where as part of his costs application father seeks reimbursement of funds paid for additional expert report – Where order made that father be reimbursed for half of the cost of the additional expert report – Where father’s costs application otherwise dismissed

  • Camilli & Albini [2021] FamCA 48

    16 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – final orders – undefended hearing – where the applicant seeks final property orders – where the respondent has failed to participate or file any material in the proceedings – leave is granted for the applicant to proceed on an undefended basis – where the parties were in a de facto relationship for approximately 10 years – where the parties’ asset pool is extremely modest – where the applicant is seeking that she retain the majority of the assets including the former matrimonial home – where the applicant’s direct financial contributions are overwhelming – order that the applicant retain the former matrimonial home.

  • Masih & El Saeid [2021] FamCA 60

    15 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father sought to abandon his parenting application after prolonged proceedings – Where those prolonged proceedings include final hearing and a successful appeal – Where the present interim orders are from 2012 – Where all parties agreed that the father was not spending time with the children as outlined in the interim orders – Where all parties nonetheless consented to the interim orders being made final – Orders made.

  • Aydin & Toh [2021] FamCA 44

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – respondent opposing registration of arbitral award – various “reasons” advanced – none impugning the arbitration so as to render it void ab initio, that being the test under Regulation 67Q(3) – arbitral award registered.

  • Willmot & Willmot [2021] FamCA 37

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where application for interim spousal maintenance, interim property orders and injunction as to property – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where appropriate to make lump sum orders for further division of funds available in lieu of periodic order – Where proper to make injunctions at to property – Where costs reserved to final trial.

  • Cordwell & Cordwell [2021] FamCA 36

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM ISSUES – Where application for various interim property orders and orders for enforcement – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where matter awaiting allocation of final hearing dates – Where appropriate that some issues await final hearing – Where proper for order for sale of a property co-owned with the parties superannuation fund – Where otherwise other orders made by consent

  • Entezam & Devi [2021] FamCA 25

    12 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – NATIONAL ARBITRATION LIST – Regulation 67Q(3) – 15 reasons advanced by respondent for not registering arbitral award – examination of phrase “any reason” – relationship with grounds under s 13K(2) for setting aside an arbitral award – held, award registered – no reason for not registering award made out.

  • Mudin & Bashar [2021] FamCA 45

    10 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the mother seeks an adjournment of the final hearing set down in this matter – Where the mother contends that she has been unable to prepare for the hearing due to a difficult pregnancy and will be unable to engage in the proceedings due to having an infant child and no options of alternate arrangements for care of that child – Where both parties have failed to comply with trial directions made in the proceedings – Orders made extending deadline to comply with trial directions – Adjournment granted.

  • Neumann & Haas (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 39

    10 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks for the husband to vacate the former matrimonial home in order to effect its sale – Where the husband has failed to comply with previous orders for the sale and vacation of the property – Where the husband has frustrated the sale of the property – Where the husband did not seek to file any material in response to the wife’s application – Orders made for the husband to vacate the property within 48 hours, a warrant for possession issue and for the husband to be excluded from the sale process.

  • Brett & Lennox [2021] FamCA 57

    08 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where Application for final parenting orders made – Where the Applicant mother and Respondent father failed to appear at four court events – Where application dismissed

  • Tinashe [2021] FamCA 41

    05 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – children, infants or minors – parenting orders – proper parties – child born via IVF – statutes – interpretation – (CTH) Family Law Act 1975 – Interaction with prescribed State and Territory laws – extent to which Regulations may prescribe State and Territory laws – section 60H(2) does not authorise Regulations to pick up State and Territory laws determining who is not a parent – whether ordinary meaning of “parent” excludes mere donor of genetic material – circumstances of donation of genetic material relevant to assessment – waiver.

  • SCVG & Estate of KLD (Deceased) (No. 5) [2020] FamCA 1065

    11 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – orders for pleadings – striking out of pleadings - fraud

  • Beta & Avron [2021] FamCA 35

    08 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Review of Senior Registrar’s decision – Application to review a decision of a Senior Registrar in respect of interim parenting arrangements including where one of the children are to attend school – Review by way of hearing de novo – Application for review dismissed.

  • Harty & Chilton [2021] FamCA 34

    08 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Best interests – Where the applicants are non-parents – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where orders made providing the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt with equal shared parental responsibility – Where orders made for the children to live with the maternal grandmother – Where orders made for younger children to spend defined time with the father – Where orders made for eldest child to spend time with the father as agreed between the father and the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt – Where orders made for children to spend time with the mother as agreed between the mother and the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt and under certain conditions – Where appropriate to make orders permitting the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt to obtain passports for the children and travel internationally with them – Where orders made for the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt to apply to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages for birth certificates – Where orders made for the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt to apply to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages to register the two younger children.

  • Newman & Tate [2021] FamCA 31

    04 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW - COSTS – Where the mother seeks the father pay legal costs incurred by her incidental to interim parenting proceedings which included a Contravention Application and Application for a recovery order, heard and determined by a Senior Registrar, and an Application for a review of the Senior Registrars decision – Where the father opposes the orders sought by the mother – Whether the conduct of the parties justifies making of orders for costs – Where the circumstances justify an order for the totality of costs incurred on an indemnity basis – Order made for costs to be paid by father in respect to the Contravention and recovery order Applications in a fixed sum.

  • Behrendt & Cadenet (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 19

    29 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – EVIDENCE – Where Single Expert has previously prepared a Family Report – Where the Family Report raised the need to engage further experts in relation to allegations of father accessing pornographic material – Where orders made to engage such experts prior to preparation of updated Family Report by Single Expert – Where the father seeks the appointment of an fresh single expert to prepare the updated Family Report – Where the father claims to have lost confidence in the Single Expert – Where the mother and ICL oppose the father’s Application – Application dismissed

  • Jalal & Malki [2021] FamCA 29

    19 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent Orders

  • Peat & Northup (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1123

    24 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time – Best interests of the child – Where both parties seek that the children live with the wife – Where the husband seeks a gradual build up in time with the children to five nights per fortnight – Where the wife seeks that the children spend limited time with the husband – Where the relationship between the husband and the children is fractured – Where the children have been and continue to be reluctant to spend time with the husband – Where only one child currently spends time with the husband on a limited basis – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where the wife considers that to force the children to spend time with the husband may result in psychological harm – Where the wife is not invested in promoting the children’s relationship with the husband – Where the Family Consultant considered the relationship between the husband and the children needs to be supported – Where the evidence does not support a finding that the husband presents as a risk to the children – Where there is a benefit to the children maintaining a relationship with the husband – Orders.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – Where the husband seeks equal shared parental responsibility and the wife seeks sole parental responsibility – Where there is a lack of communication between the parties – Where the parties are mistrustful of each other – Best interests of the child – Orders.

    FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and equitable – Contributions – Add backs - Future needs – Where the parties held minimal assets at the commencement of cohabitation – Where the husband seeks a 65 per cent split of the non-superannuation pool in his favour – Where the wife seeks an equal division of the net asset pool – Where the parties agree to equalise their superannuation entitlements – Where the parties are in dispute about add backs – Where the husband made the greater financial contribution – Where the wife made significant non-financial contributions – Where the wife has retained the primary care of the children following separation – Consideration of an inheritance received by the husband post-separation – Consideration of the treatment of partial property settlement sums – Where both parties are currently employed – Where the husband’s income is substantially higher than that of the wife – Where the wife will retain the primary care of the children - Where it is just and equitable for orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to be made – Orders.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Trusts – Where the husband’s late father’s estate is held on trust - Where the wife seeks to include distributions to the husband from the trust in the property pool – Where the wife seeks to include the husband’s interest in the trust in the property pool – Where the purpose of the trust is to hold assets which are to be passed to the husband’s late father’s grandchildren – Where the trustee is a company – Where the husband is not a director of the company but holds shares on a non-beneficial basis – Where the husband receives taxable distributions – Where the husband does not control the trust nor is there evidence that he has exercised any level of control in respect of the trustee or that he would cause the premature distribution of the trust contrary to his father’s testamentary intentions – Where the income available for distribution is coming to an end.

  • Vlahos & Vlahos [2020] FamCA 1120

    24 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim orders – where orders previously made by consent for the sale of real property – where the property is registered in the wife’s sole name and the wife is the registered owner-builder – where the parties are in default of the mortgage and the mortgagee has issued a default notice – application by the husband for the sale of the property on “as is” basis to avoid a mortgagee sale – where the wife opposes the sale of the property “as is” due to a significant water leakage issue which could expose the wife to liability – where the wife alleges she only recently became aware of the water leakage issue – where the wife seeks an adjournment period to seek professional advice about rectification works – matter adjourned – no order for costs.

  • Newman & Tate [2020] FamCA 1114

    24 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Review of Senior Registrar’s decision – Where there is an Application before the Court to review a decision of the Senior Registrar in respect of interim parenting arrangements – Senior Registrar’s orders provide for one of the twin children to live with the father and the other twin and third child live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father – Where there is no dispute in respect to the interim arrangements for the parties’ third child – Where the parties have competing applications in respect to the interim living arrangements for the twin children – Where the child living with the father spent a period of time in Hospital subsequent to a mental health episode – Where the child living with the father has expressed strong views in respect to his propensity to self-harm if he were not to live with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer contends that a cautious approach should be taken by the Court – Consideration given to the potential risk to the children’s mental health in respect to each of the parties’ applications – Orders made for each of the children to remain living with the respective parents – Orders made for the children to spend un-supervised time with the parent with whom they do not live as agreed between the parties – Orders made for the parties to surrender their firearms.

  • Spinner & Bader [2020] FamCA 1089

    24 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the wife sought orders pursuant to s 79A(b) and s 79A(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the variation of final property orders made by consent – where this was opposed by the husband – where this matter has a lengthy and complicated history including a successful appeal – where the wife has not established either of the grounds she relies upon pursuant to s 79A – where the wife’s application is dismissed.

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – warrant for possession – where orders had previously been made for a warrant of possession to be issued requiring the wife to vacate the former matrimonial home – where this warrant was stayed pending the delivery of this judgment – where this stay is extended until the end of January to take into account the Christmas period – where the warrant will be executed in the event that the wife fails to provide the husband with vacant possession of the former matrimonial home.

  • Ventura & Ventura [2020] FamCA 1127

    23 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – non-compliance with final orders – whether the orders ought to be varied – consideration of the rule in Rice & Asplund – allegations of risk – untested expert evidence – costs application – no basis on which to vary orders – allegations of risk unsubstantiated – application dismissed – no orders as to costs.

  • Tilston & Tilston and Ors (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1105

    21 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where a final property order has been made – Where the husband seeks to recover from the wife costs incurred in the property proceedings – Where an order has been made dismissing a son’s claim for damages for misleading and deceptive conduct or in the alternative a breach of fiduciary duty – Where the husband seeks to recover from the son costs incurred as a result of defending the claim – Where the circumstances of this case do not justify a costs order against either the wife or the son - Where there will be no order as to costs.

  • Cardus & Lavrick (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1103

    21 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Circumstances justifying order - Where mother seeks indemnity costs against father - Where father submits that he is impecunious and denies that his motives in the litigation were malicious or vexatious - Where father was wholly unsuccessful in the substantive proceeding and it was found by the Court that the institution and maintenance of the proceedings constituted an abuse of process – Where father fails to prove his claims of impecuniosity  - Whether impecuniosity or incapacity to meet a costs order can, per se, be determinative – Where it is found that the father’s conduct throughout the proceedings and the fact that he was wholly unsuccessful justifies the making of a costs order against him - orders that the father pay the costs of the mother on an indemnity basis – Whether costs should be fixed in a specific amount – Orders made fixing costs in a specific amount.

  • Omidvar & Jarah (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1094

    18 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Family violence – Best interests of the child - Where the mother alleges significant family violence but it is denied by the father – Where there was no positive finding of family violence yet unable to reject all allegations as groundless - Where the father does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the future – Where the mother’s parenting capacity is not significantly negatively impacted if the child were to spend time with the father - Where the father’s proposal to spend time with the child is not reasonably practicable – Where despite there being no positive finding of family violence and where it is found that the father does not pose as an unacceptable risk of harm, it is found that it is not in the child’s best interest to spend time with the father -Where an Order is made that the child is not to spend any time with the father unless instigated by the child.

  • Sande & Darwin [2020] FamCA 1087

    17 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – REVIEW OF DECISION OF SENIOR REGISTRAR – review dismissed – applicant for review relying on 12 grounds – none made out – respondent seeking six orders – all granted.

  • Nielsen & Springer (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1079

    17 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where final parenting orders were made in September 2019 after a defended hearing – Consideration of the rule in Rice & Asplund – Where the mother unilaterally moved to New South Wales – Where the father seeks that the mother do return the children to their principle place of residence in Adelaide – Whether it is in the best interests of the children to re-litigate parenting issues – Where there is a sufficient change in circumstances to satisfy the rule in Rice & Asplund – Parenting proceedings to be revisited on an adjourned date for future progress of the matter.

  • Jia & Khajeh [2020] FamCA 1068

    16 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto Property Adjustment – Where discussion of applicable principles – Where short marriage – Where contributions overwhelmingly favour the husband – Where no relevant s 90SF(3) factors – Order for cash payment to the wife.

  • Kipling & Netis [2020] FamCA 1107

    09 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – STAY – Where final property adjustment Orders were made providing for funds to be released to the wife – Where the husband appealed those Orders – Where the husband’s final avenue of appeal was exhausted by order of the High Court of Australia – Where a s106A Order has been made for the Registrar to sign an authority for such funds to be released to the wife – Where the husband seeks a further stay of the final property Orders and a stay of the s 106A Order – Application dismissed

  • Zubcic & Zubcic (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1024

    09 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – DISCHARGE OF TRUSTEES – Where trustees are permitted to retire once the funds under their control have been distributed – Where the assertion by the husband and the wife that the quantum of the trustees’ expenses and remuneration was too high does not constitute evidence capable of demonstrating that the charges are unreasonable – Where the Trustees would be justified in retaining fund under their control to be held as security for the costs of any proceedings brought – Where the Trustees may retain these funds for four months.

  • Balken & Vyner (No. 2) [2020] FamCA 1019

    08 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where following the delivery of reasons for judgment the matter was adjourned for the parties to make submissions with respect to the form of the orders – where the parties could not agree  - where having heard each party’s submissions the Court has made orders.

    FAMILY LAW – COSTSwhere the husband sought orders that the wife pay his costs in relation to the slip rule amendment on an indemnity basis – where the circumstances do not merit indemnity costs being awarded – where the wife is ordered to pay the husbands costs on a party/party basis.

  • Stokes & Stokes and Anor [2020] FamCA 1086

    07 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the matter is listed for final hearing for three days in 2021 in relation to property matters only – where the wife subsequently filed an amended initiating application seeking to also ventilate parenting issues – where the wife seeks to bifurcate the proceedings so that the property and parenting matters are heard separately – where the husband seeks that both parenting and property issues be determined at the same time – where ventilating all of the issues in one hearing will save the parties time and costs – where the Court does not have capacity to add a further three days to the current listed hearing – order that the final hearing be vacated and that both parenting and property issues be listed before me for final hearing.

  • Porter & Porter and Ors (No. 4) [2020] FamCA 1037

    07 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for indemnity costs by the fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth respondents – Where the wife did not make full disclosure during an ex-parte hearing – Where the wife has been wholly unsuccessful – Criteria for indemnity costs not established – Costs awarded to the fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth respondents in a fixed sum.

  • Vuu & Manh [2020] FamCA 1032

    23 Nov 2020

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – international relocation application – where orders were made by consent for the father to be permitted to relocate with the child and for the child to spend time with the mother

  • Balken & Vyner [2020] FamCA 955

    30 Sep 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Just and Equitable – where the husband asserted that it was not just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties property interests – where the husband received significant gifts, inheritances and income from trusts established by his father during the relationship – where the husband made non-financial contributions to the welfare of the wife and himself – where the wife made more limited financial contributions – where the wife’s primary contribution was to the welfare of the husband and the husband’s child from a previous marriage – where orders are made for the payment of a lump sum to the wife from the husband.

    FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – where the wife asserted that the parties were in a de facto relationship prior to their marriage – where the husband denied the existence of the de facto relationship – where the parties having married it is the nature of the relationship, its duration and contributions themselves which is relevant rather than whether it meets the legal definition – whilst the parties were in a relationship prior to the marriage the evidence does not demonstrate that they were in a continuous relationship living together on a genuine domestic basis for the duration of their relationship prior to the marriage– where the parties having married it is their contributions they both made prior to and following the marriage that are relevant.

    FAMILY LAW – TRUSTS – where the asset pool comprises of a number of corporate entities and  trusts – where the husband is the beneficiary of trusts established by his father prior to his death – where the parties instructed a single expert to prepare a valuation of the various entities which they control or in which they have an interest – where there were disputes as to the value and control of the trusts established by the husband’s father – where it is determined that the husband does not have control of the trusts established by his father, have any current entitlement to or access to the capital of those trusts.

  • Secretary Department of Communities and Justice & Voigt [2021] FamCA 32

    04 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – HAGUE CONVENTION – Child brought to Australia from New Zealand – Consideration of the child’s habitual residence as at the date of alleged wrongful retention – Whether father consented or acquiesced to child’s removal – Exercise of Discretion to return – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 111B – Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth), reg 16 – Return Order

  • Downie & Lopes [2021] FamCA 30

    04 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory proceeding – application for sale of the former matrimonial home

  • Kalant & Jordain [2021] FamCA 33

    03 Feb 2021

    FAMILY LAW – Children – orders varying the time that the child will spend with the father – child to spend a block of time before interview with single expert – recovery order – where recovery order issued to lie in chambers in the event that the child is not made available to the father

  • Anson & Lace [2021] FamCA 23

    29 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Where at the conclusion of the final hearing both parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contended the Court make interim orders after making findings as to risk – Where there are issues of family violence, drug use and alleged sexual abuse – where the mother seeks the child recommence spending time with the father supervised – Where the Court finds the child is not at unacceptable risk of sexual abuse in the care of the father – Where the child has not spent any time with the father for over two years – Where the Court makes orders to seek to give the child an opportunity to safely engage with her father – Interim orders to be made for the child to spend supervised time with the father and live with the mother, with conditions

  • Crawford & Crawford [2021] FamCA 15

    29 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time with – Orders – Interim parenting orders formalising current arrangements made by consent.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Companies – Where the husband seeks that the wife resign as a director of a company – Where the wife opposes such an order – Where the wife is the sole director – Where the parties agree to appoint the husband as a director – Where the wife is concerned about a proposed business development – Where the husband considers the development is necessary for the financial viability of the business – Where a third party is unwilling to be involved in the development whilst the wife remains involved – Where there is insufficient evidence.

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim – Where the parties are in dispute about the financial distributions to be made to the wife on a weekly basis for her personal and discretionary expenditure – Where the parties signed an Undertaking wherein the wife would receive $2,000  to meet her expenses – Consideration of the financial circumstances of both parties – Where the parties are in dispute about the amount to be used to purchase a motor vehicle for the wife – Where there is no reason for the higher amount as sought by the wife – Orders.

    FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Preservation of property – Where the parties agree to various injunctions – Where the parties agree the husband is to be restrained from dealing with his interest in a trades business subject to the normal course of business – Where the husband considers he should be permitted to deal with a proposed business development – Where the wife is concerned the proposed development may diminish the husband’s interest in the trades business – Where the husband holds a fifty percent interest in the company together with his father – Where the husband considers that without the development the financial viability of the business is at risk – Where there is not enough evidence about the proposed development – Where it is not a matter for the Court to consider every business decision that may be made by a party – Where it is likely that any development will require the consent of each of the parties – Orders.

  • Fazil & Fazil [2021] FamCA 16

    28 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE – Where assertion of extent of overseas property interests of the wife – Where husband seeks order to facilitate disclosure of documents relating to same – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where consideration of discretion in rule 13.22 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where application dismissed.

  • Tarbell & Pedlar (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 28

    27 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – best interests – final orders made

  • Tarbell & Pedlar [2021] FamCA 27

    27 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – parents leave during the course of the hearing – proceedings to continue in their absence.

  • Mayes & Brogan [2021] FamCA 20

    25 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim property distribution – Where the applicant entered into a contract to purchase real property but did not have the funds to complete the purchase – Where the applicant sought an order that the respondent advance to the applicant the funds required to complete the purchase – Whether there is a principled reason to make an interim property order – Whether it is just and equitable to make that order – Where it is found that this is a matter where it is just and equitable to alter the property interests – Where the respondent is to pay such sum as is required to facilitate the settlement – Where the applicant is restrained from encumbering or dealing with the property

  • Cobb & Jepson [2021] FamCA 12

    22 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation – Whether it is in the child’s best interests to relocate with the father to the United Kingdom –Where the father is at liberty to relocate with the child – Where the father has the capacity to support the child should he relocate to the United Kingdom – Where the father will likely facilitate the child spending time and communicating with the mother and grandmother if he and the child relocate to the United Kingdom – Where the father will not be required to delay his decision to relocate with the child due to the COVID19 pandemic.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Whether the time spent between the mother and child occurs in the presence of the maternal grandmother - Where time should occur in the presence of the grandmother if requested by the child - Whether the child is neglected by the father – Whether the parents’ alleged involvement of the child in the conflict has had an impact on the child – Where the child’s behavioural issues and school absenteeism are likely to be attributable to her being the focus of her parents’ ongoing conflict.

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Order – Variation – Where there is a ‘final’ parenting order in place – Rice & Asplund – Where the father’s wish to relocate with the child to the United Kingdom is a significant change warranting variation to the previous parenting order – Where the mother’s evidence does not establish a sufficient degree of significance to warrant a reversal in the child’s living arrangements or parental responsibility – Where it is in the child’s best interest to continue to live with the father – Where it is in the child’s best interests that the father continue to have sole parental responsibility for the child.

  • Olenghi & Salambo [2021] FamCA 9

    22 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Where final parenting orders were made in 2016 – Where the father seeks to discharge and/or amend the orders – Where the mother seeks that the father’s application be dismissed – Consideration of the rule in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where the orders sought by father do little more than propose a different psychologist to undertake reunification counselling – Where there has not been a material change in circumstances – Where therapeutic evidence suggests the father’s conduct has traumatised the child – Where the child has developed maladaptive and adaptive ways to cope with the trauma – Where it would not be in the child’s best interests for further litigation – Father’s Application dismissed.

  • Kanas & Kanas [2021] FamCA 17

    19 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Where determination of sum payable – Where order made for payment – Where costs of and incidental to application to be as agreed or as assessed.

    FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Where orders made by consent under section 79 of the Act by way of property adjustment – Where husband in breach for a period of 3 years of orders 4, 5 and 6 in failing to pay to the wife the capital sum set out in those orders – Where wife filed an Application in a Case seeking enforcement of orders and/or the appointment of a trustee for sale of property – Where order made for the appointment of a trustee for sale of a property – Where proceeds to be distributed as to payment discharging the mortgage and all outgoings in relation to the sale of the property, payment to the wife of the capital sums previously ordered plus interest, payment to be placed in interest in respect of the wife’s costs of the enforcement application and payment of excess to the husband

  • Adelstein & Byron [2021] FamCA 4

    18 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Schooling – Where the parties have been involved in dispute since separation – Where the child is to attend kindergarten in January 2021 – Where the parties cannot agree on the school the child will attend – Where there is no discernible differences in the schools proposed by the parties – Where the father will pay school fees for the school proposed by him – Where the mother has no capacity to pay the fees of her proposed school – Turns on own facts.

    FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Injunctions – Where mother seeks relocation to B Region on a final basis - Where the mother has previously unilaterally relocated – Where recovery order made, and  the mother returned to NSW – where mother has complied with Court orders since unilateral relocation – Where the father seeks injunctions restraining mother from travel outside NSW – Where maternal grandparents live in B Region – Injunctions refused – Turns on own facts.

  • Oldfield & Oldfield [2021] FamCA 3

    15 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim application – sale of assets – where each party seeks orders in relation to the sale of three properties – where neither party is able to retain the properties – where the parties disagree as to the order of sale of the properties – where assets need to be sold for the parties to acquire funds – where the Respondent opposes the selling agent proposed by the Applicant – orders made for the properties to be sold together by the selling agent proposed by the Applicant – orders made for sale of chattels.

  • Mok & Suwan [2021] FamCA 10

    11 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – MARRIAGE – NULLITY – Application for declaration of nullity of marriage – Where it is alleged that at the time of the marriage the husband was lawfully married to another person – Application granted

  • Cirillo & Cirillo [2021] FamCA 2

    11 Jan 2021

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Procedure – Urgent Application – Where the second and third respondents privately appointed by bank, then by order of the Supreme Court of NSW, as joint and several receivers and managers of certain assets and undertakings of a trust associated with the husband - Where the second and third respondents are parties to proceedings in Family Court of Australia only by reason of their appointment as joint receivers and managers – Where the respondent husband seeks to have the second and third respondents removed as receivers and managers in separate proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW – Where the respondent husband seeks conditional orders to have the second and third respondents removed as parties to the proceedings in the event they cease to be joint receivers and managers – Where the second and third respondents consent to the orders sought – Where the applicant wife concedes the second and third respondents would have no role in proceedings in the Family Court if removed as receivers and managers – Where the applicant wife opposes the orders sought – Orders made

  • Vrebac & Vrebac [2020] FamCA 1088

    24 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks that the husband pay her costs on an indemnity basis – where the costs of the wife’s Application in a Case will be reserved for determination at trial.

  • Field & Kingston [2020] FamCA 1126

    23 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the husband has defaulted on payment pursuant to final property orders – enforcement warrant on foot – husband seeking an extension of time to make payment pursuant to the orders – pending application for leave to appeal to the High Court – whether the time ordered to make payment is a substantive or machinery provision – order sought to be varied a substantive provision – no jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the husband – application dismissed with costs.

  • Bruno & Estrella [2020] FamCA 1080

    17 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application by the wife for interim property settlement – Where the wife has previously benefitted from interim property settlement orders in her favour in 2018 – Where the wife asserts the funds will primarily be utilised on outstanding and future legal fees and mortgage payments or discharge – Where the husband has had the benefit and primary control over parties’ income producing assets post‑separation – Where both parties have failed to transparently disclose all financial circumstances including legal fees but where the wife’s failure is of greater significance – Where for several months the husband has been maintaining outgoing payments relating to the former matrimonial home in which the wife and the parties’ children reside – Where the wife has not made a proper case for interim property settlement – Where justice and equity would best be served by orders for the husband to maintain all outgoings on the former matrimonial home as and when they fall due but no order as to a lump sum payment as sought by the wife.

  • Ahmad & Hadi [2020] FamCA 1041

    07 Dec 2020

    FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Whether the Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction to make parenting orders – Where there are ongoing parenting proceedings overseas – Consideration of ss 69E and 111CD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether the child is habitually resident in Australia – Where habitual residence is to be determined at the date of the relevant hearing – Where the evidence suggests the child is not habitually resident in Australia – Where there is no basis upon which this Court may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth personal protection measure in relation to the child – Application dismissed.

  • Behzadi & Agassi [2020] FamCA 1112

    24 Nov 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs by the applicant that the wife pay her costs of the proceedings as assessed or agreed – Order that wife pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s legal costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed under the rules on a party/party basis

  • Ayari & Agassi [2020] FamCA 1111

    24 Nov 2020

    FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application filed by the husband that the wife pay his costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed – Order that wife pay the husbands legal costs of the proceedings as agreed or as assessed under the rules on a party/party basis – Order that wife pay the sum of $2,200 being the fees of the husband’s barrister on the Costs Application or a portion of the fees of the husbands barrister.

    FAMIL LAW – PROCEDURAL – Application filed by husband seeking a discharge of interim orders made 14 September 2016 – Application granted interim orders 5 and 6 made 14 September 2020 discharged and vacated