Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – EX-TEMPORE – Property settlement – Where parties were in a relationship for 34 years – Where the primary judge assessed the parties’ contributions at 75 percent in favour of the respondent and 25 per cent in favour of the appellant – Primary judge made an adjustment under s 75(2) resulting in 88 per cent distribution in favour of the respondent and 22 per cent in favour of the appellant – Where the appellant argued inadequacy of reasons – A 22 per cent distribution in favour of the appellant was outside the ambit of a reasonable assessment pursuant to the test in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – Parties agreed on terms of settlement – Orders made by consent – Appeal allowed by consent – No matters of principle.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the appellant father attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance the day before the hearing – Where the appellant did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Appeal dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Rules. -No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Recovery order – Where appellant father did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Where there is no merit in the appeal – Where the orders subject of the appeal are no longer operative – No utility in allowing the appeal – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to obtain the transcript – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Where the applicant seeks an expansion of the contents of the Appeal Book – Leave granted to file a Contested Appeal Book – Application otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge determined that family violence made the respondent’s otherwise equal contributions more difficult, onerous or arduous – No error of fact – Adequacy of reasons – Error of law – Reasons as to why the primary judge made an adjustment in favour of the respondent inadequate – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – where the respondent claims orders have been made in Country B in relation to the property – where the evidence does not support this claim – where the respondent claims that the property is held on trust for his mother – where the evidence does not support this claim – where the respondent has failed to provide full and frank disclosure – orders made for the applicant to receive 70% of the pool.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING – Where the mother was in breach of orders made in April 2024 and May 2025 requiring the mother to provide a specimen of her hair for a hair follicle test – Where the mother produced a drug test result, which was positive for an illegal substance – Where the Court suspends time between the child and her mother – Where the Court finds that the child is not safe in the care of the mother.

INTERIM PROPERTY – Application for sale of the former family home – Where each party by his/her respective application sought an order for the sale of the property – Where the de facto wife abandoned that application and sought to retain the property despite being in receipt of Commonwealth Benefits and failing to produce any evidence, which might support a conclusion that she may be able to retain it – Order made for the sale of the property.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where the father is facing multiple serious criminal charges including sexual assault – Where the Court has previously made findings that another child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the care of the father and ordered for no time between the child and the father – Where the mother raises serious allegations of family violence and coercive and controlling behaviour – Where the Court found the father was the perpetrator of family violence – Where the father contended that the risk can be mitigated through supervised time – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) contended that the risk cannot be mitigated and sought for the father to spend no time with the child – Where the Court is satisfied that the father poses an unacceptable risk even in a supervised setting – Orders made for the father to spend no time with the child.

PROPERTY – Where both parties sought an order by way of financial adjustment – Where the mother sought 70 per cent of the net asset pool – Where the father sought 65 per cent of the net asset pool – Where contributions were assessed as equal – Where the mother contended that the family violence she suffered affected her ability to make contributions – Where the Court is satisfied that this has been established – Where the mother is and will be the sole carer of the child and receives limited child support from the father – Where an adjustment in favour of the mother is appropriate – Where a just and equitable outcome is 60 per cent to the mother and 40 percent to the father

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Spend time arrangements – Where the applicant father did not appear at the final hearing – Where the father did not file material in accordance with trial directions – Where there is a history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother – Where the father’s application for final parenting orders was dismissed for want of prosecution – Where final parenting orders were made in the mother’s terms as consented to by the ICL – best interests of the child promoted.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - Where interim orders previously made providing for supervised time - Where previous evidence made out risk of family violence - Whether further evidence heightens or diminishes risk of family violence - Whether relief sought is in the best interests of the child - Application to discharge previous orders dismissed.

PARENTING - Relocation - Where interim orders previously made restraining relocation - Where child’s enrolment threatened by father's failure to pay school fees - Where evidence points to potential upheaval caused by relocation - Whether relief sought is in the best interests of the child - Application for relocation dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim application – Where the matter proceeded undefended – Where orders had been made for the sale of real property and a business by consent – Where the husband has thereafter obstructed such sales – Where there is a ready and willing purchaser- Where the wife seeks sole conduct of the sale of property and the business – Orders made in the terms as sought by the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - EXPERT EVIDENCE – Where the applicant seeks orders that the single expert real estate valuer chosen by agreement between the parties be discharged and that another expert be appointed as the single expert – Where the respondent opposed the application – Discussion of the purpose of the Rules such that a party should only obtain expert evidence in relation to a significant issue, restricted to that necessary to resolve or determine the proceedings, without compromising the interests of justice – Where the Court is not satisfied that there is any basis for the discharge of the existing single expert or there exists any basis for the appointment of an additional expert – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – LITIGATION GUARDIAN – Where substantive application is brought by one spouse’s granddaughter who seeks a s 113 declaration that respondent spouses’ marriage a nullity – Where the parties agree a litigation guardian be appointed for the wife – Where the applicant proposes appointment of a specific solicitor – Where the husband seeks the appointment of a friend – Where each proposed guardian meets the matters in r 3.14 – Where the friend intends to engage legal representatives of her own if appointed – Where those legal representatives’ costs are unknown – Orders made appointing the litigation guardian proposed by the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO PROPERTY – Relationship of 10 years – Consideration of add-back of gambling losses of over $10 million – Where the Applicant has failed to make full and frank disclosure – Where it is difficult for the Court to determine the Applicant’s offshore bank balances and property and business interests – Where it is not just and equitable to make a property adjustment order – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting order – International relocation – Where the father is a British citizen working as a legal professional in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) – Where the father seeks the child’s relocation – Where the UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention – Where it is in the child’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents and this can only occur if the child is living with the father – Where the parties agree that an order for sole parental decision-making in relation to major long-term issues affecting the child is appropriate – Where the father shall take all reasonable steps to register the order in the United Kingdom and/or obtain a reciprocal parenting order in the United Kingdom that can be enforced in that jurisdiction – Where the child will live with the father and there will be a three-month moratorium on time and communication with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – interim time arrangements – where father was convicted of possession of child exploitation material – where father has not seen 2 year old child since separation – where father makes application to see child on a supervised basis prior to final hearing of the matter to commence in March 2026 – where father alleges no direct risk of harm to the child or indirect risk of harm to the mother – Re Andrew – untested evidence – status quo is the safest course – father’s application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – interim application brought by the Applicant Wife – where Respondent Husband did not attend the Interim Defended Hearing in relation to the interim application – where Applicant Wife sought orders in relation to disclosure and the appointment of a trustee for sale – where such orders were made.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Application in a Proceeding filed by an intervener – Where the intervener is a company in which the parties to the de facto financial cause hold or held wealth – Where the intervener seeks joinder of itself and a third party to the proceedings – Where the applicant de facto wife and first respondent do not object to joinder – Where the third party previously provided an undertaking to the Court and was released from proceedings – Where the parties to the de facto financial cause hold or held wealth in companies that the third party purports to be director – Where the Court is satisfied on a prima facie basis of the inference the third party may be purporting to be director without valid appointment – Orders for joinder of the intervener and third party – Interim orders restraining the third party in relation to the nominated companies.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate the child's residence to the United Kingdom ("UK") – Where father seeks for the child to remain in Australia – Where both parties agree that the child should live primarily with the mother – Where parties are not communicating with one another – Where the mother alleges a history of non-physical acts of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where mother claims that this family violence took the form of belittling and denigrating comments made in person and via sharing memes by electronic means – Where father denies that these comments were malicious in nature – Where the Court finds no history of conduct meeting the definition of family violence– Where the mother's beliefs and fears of the father, relating to family violence, are still relevant to consideration of potential orders – Where mother has long-standing mental health vulnerabilities – Where mother would enjoy a greater deal of practical and emotional support in the UK – Where mother’s mental health in Australia is suboptimal but stable – Where the mother’s parenting is described as a "nurturing" and "competent" and the evidence does not demonstrate that her health is compromising her parenting capacity – Where the father is unable to obtain a visa for the UK – Where the proposed move would significantly impact the child's relationship with the father – Where the parties’ finances and communication issues make arranging travel difficult if not untenable – Held that it is in the best interest of the child to live in Australia in order to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the respondent de facto wife asserts that her financial contributions were superior to the financial contributions of the applicant – Where the applicant de facto husband has ongoing financial responsibilities for the parties’ only child – Order made for a division of the property pool in favour of the de facto husband.

PROPERTY – Appointment of Trustee – Where wife non-compliant with Orders made for the sale of a property held in the joint names of the parties – Where applicant seeks orders appointing him trustee for sale.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Interim application – Where the first respondent filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking a variation of an order to allow him to personally attend a property which the applicant has sole use and occupation of – Where the first respondent’s application was unmeritorious – Where the applicant makes an application for costs as against the first respondent – Where the first respondent improperly refused an offer made by the applicant – Where the first respondent was wholly unsuccessful – Order for costs made in favour of the applicant against the first respondent.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM HEARING – PARENTING – Where authorities in relation to the assessment of risk at an interim stage considered – Where the mother makes allegations of family violence against the father – Where the father makes allegations that the mother suffers from a mental health condition(s) and is otherwise a person who uses illicit substances – Where the Court finds that the child will be safe from the harm of being exposed to or subjected to family violence by the father under the conditions of professional supervision at a Contact Service.

INTERIM HEARING – Question of whether the Court is seized of jurisdiction pursuant to s 111CD(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). INTERIM HEARING – International Relocation -Where the mother seeks the Court’s imprimatur on a retrospective basis to relocate the child’s primary place of residence from New South Wales to the United Arab Emirates – Where the father opposes that application – Where the mother’s interim application for relocation is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for relocation – Where the child lives with the paternal grandmother – Whether it is in the best interests of the child to relocate – Where risks exist for the child to spend time with each parent – Where the child has certain needs that may be met by relocation – Orders made allowing relocation.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Relocation – Where the applicant sought to relocate with the children to Newcastle – Where the respondent opposed any relocation – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the relocation of the applicant in an alternate proposal provided to the Court – Where the Court permits the applicant to relocate to City AJ.

FAMILY VIOLENCE – Coercive or Controlling Conduct – Where the applicant contends that she was subject to family violence which coerced or controlled her – Where the respondent denies the allegations – Where the Court undertakes an extensive investigation of the circumstances of the interparental dynamic – Where the Court determines that the applicant was subject to family violence by the respondent.

PARENTING – Restraints – Where the applicant sought a restraint against the respondent from denigrating her to the children’s schools, service providers or medical practitioners – Where the applicant sought a restraint on the respondent from leaving unwarranted negative reviews against the hers or the children’s schools, service providers or medical practitioners – Where the respondent opposed any such order – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer was silent as to restrains – Where the Court was taken to evidence of historic conduct by the respondent that demonstrates a pattern of antagonistic behaviour – Where the Court makes restraints in accordance with the orders sought by the applicant.

PARENTING – Time – Where the applicant sought that the children spend time with the respondent two nights per fortnight – Where the respondent sought no change to the current status quo of equal time – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyers provided two proposals to the Court – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer primarily propounds a proposal aligned with the respondent – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s secondary proposal aligns with the applicant – Where the Court made orders permitting the applicant to relocate to City AJ – Where the Court views that it is impractical to maintain equal time – Where the Court orders that the respondent spend time with the children on two nights per fortnight – Where the Court makes orders for the applicant to have sole long-term decision-making for the children.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where mother alleges family violence – Where mother alleges father is unable to regulate his behaviour sufficiently to protect child from emotional harm – Where mother seeks no time and no communication between father and child.

PROPERTY – Significant financial contribution made by husband at commencement of relationship – Substantial parenting contributions made by mother – Family violence – Where wife is higher income earner – Where wife is carer for young child – Where husband’s compliance with disclosure obligations was inadequate.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to Estonia – Where the father alleges wrongful retention – Where the mother disputes the child’s habitual residence – Jurisdictional facts established – Regulatory exceptions to return are raised by the mother – Where the mother argued the father acquiesced to the child being retained in Australia – Grave risk of exposure to physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation is established – Where the mother is the child’s primary carer – Discretion to return not exercised – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Financial agreement – Where the parties have entered into a financial agreement pursuant to s 90C of the Act – application to set aside agreement on the basis that it was impracticable – agreement not impracticable – Property – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where the family wealth was accumulated equally – Where the parties’ contributions were largely equivalent between the commencement of the relationship and separation – Where the applicant’s contributions to the family business and the care and welfare of the children exceed those of the respondent since separation – Contribution entitlement assessed as 67/33 – adjustment to the applicant to take account of future factors – orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – competing applications for live with orders and sole parental responsibility – serious allegations of family violence – father denies allegations – whether audio recording (and transcript thereof) can be admitted into evidence - evidence supports mother’s allegations of family violence – where the father has an inability to understand the impact of his behaviours - whether a moratorium period of three months should be ordered.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT– LITIGATION FUNDING – INJUNCTIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY – Where the wife seeks orders for the sale of a real property owned by the husband and for the sale proceeds of that property to be applied to pay outstanding arrears of periodic spouse maintenance, an outstanding costs order, generate funds for a litigation funding order to be made in her favour, and the preservation of a real property held by her corporation – Where the husband opposes the relief sought by the wife – Where the husband conceded the value of spouse maintenance arrears and costs order – Where the wife has significant real property interests available – Where the wife did not adduce evidence as to any incapacity to prevent raising funds against her real properties to meet the liabilities of her corporation – Where the wife failed to establish that she has an arguable case to justify injunctive relief – Where the wife failed to establish a need to enliven an exercise of power pursuant to s 80(1)(h) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for litigation funding – Where the wife did not establish an absence of capacity to meet her own legal costs – Where the proceedings have been plagued with assertions as to significant disclosure failures – Declarations made as to primary monetary obligations payable by the husband – Husband permitted time to satisfy his obligations to pay monies to the wife – Orders made for the wife to be appointed trustee for the sale of real property and distribution of sale proceeds in the event of the husband’s failure to pay the sums declared – Procedural orders made for any application for costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – High conflict between the parties – Where there have been multiple final orders – Where both parents have limited insight – Where the primary risk to the children is of further psychological harm through exposure to entrenched parental conflict – Consideration of how the parental conflict and the children’s exposure to it can be minimised – Consideration of weight to be given to the children’s views given their ages.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the only asset of significance was sold by the wife and second respondent during proceedings – Where the sales proceeds used to pay the wife's legal debt is notionally added back –Where 80 per cent legal interest of property is found to be property of the parties – Modest property pool – Where the Court is satisfised the wife and second respondent have retained the sales proceeds – Non-disclosure of financial position – Dispute as to length of relationship – Where the Court finds long marriage of 17 years – Where wife made greater initial contributions – Where the wife has the primary care of the children – Further 5 per cent adjustment in favour of wife – Where relief is sought pursuant to s 90AE – Consideration of injunctive orders and s 90AF – Where second respondent directed to make payment – Where just and equitable to effect 65/35 division in favour of wife.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Defended hearing – Where it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ property interests – Where the husband failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure – Where the financial circumstances of the husband’s corporations cannot be independently verified – Where the husband’s personal income is not independently verified – Where the husband was the primary breadwinner – Where the wife was the primary carer of the children and homemaker – Where the wife has continued to provide primary care for the children since separation – Where the wife has borne the primary financial responsibility for the children since separation – Where no nexus exists between the wife’s admitted assault on the husband and his ability to make contributions – Where the husband perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence – Where contributions assessed at 57.5/42.5 with a 20 per cent adjustment in favour of the wife – Orders made – Wife to retain the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Superannuation splitting order made from the husband’s super.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEEDURE – Parenting – Where the Court is asked to determine both an interim application and a final parenting application on the same evidence – Where the usual authorities regarding factual findings in interim hearings are inapplicable – Where the Court views that it is open to determine issues on varying bases – Where the Court lists the matter for further mention – Where the Court lists the matter for further final hearing.

PARENTING – Final Orders – Relocation – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one parent should internationally relocate with the children – Where the parent seeking international relocation has a history of fleeing the jurisdiction in contravention of orders of this Court – Where the parent seeking relocation has limited family support in Australia – Where the Court was placed on notice that the parent seeking relocation may relocate unilaterally irrespective of the orders of this Court – Where the parent seeking relocation would otherwise be awarded ‘live with’ time with the children – Where the Court restrains the parent from internationally relocating with the children –Where the Court makes contingent orders for the parent’s unilateral relocation should it eventuate.

PARENTING – Interim Orders – Where the Court is asked to determine live with, holiday and special occasion time – Where the Court is asked to determine sole decision making for major long-term decisions –Where the Court is asked to determine what restraints should be placed on the parents – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one, or both, parents should attend therapy and enrol in parenting courses – Where the Court is faced with ‘least worse’ parenting circumstances – Where the Court determines that the children should live with the mother – Where the Court determines that the father should spend time with the children in a graduating regime culminating in block time of five nights per fortnight – Where the Court determines that equal holiday time should be shared between the parents – Where the Court determines that varying special occasion time is warranted – Where the Court determines that varying incidental restraints should be placed on both parents – Where the Court examines numerous restraints sought to be imposed that are out of power or without foundation – Where the Court determines that both parents should attend, or commence, individual therapy – Where the Court structures parenting orders so that the parents attendance at therapy is a pre-requisite to their exposure to the children – Where the Court expresses concern for both parents capacity – Where the Court determines that some benefit may arise from orders requiring the parents to attend further coursework education.

PARENTING – Unacceptable risk – Where the Court is asked to determine whether one, or both, of the parents present an unacceptable risk to the children – Where allegations of physical violence are made – Where allegations of child sexual assault are made – Where allegations of grooming are made – Where allegations of mental instability are made – Where the Court cannot affirm that either parent promotes the safety of the children – Where the Court must choose the ‘least worse’ option – Where the Court makes findings of family violence – Where no findings of child sexual assault or grooming are made – Where the Court determines that no unacceptable risk, for either parent, exists – Where the Court makes orders minimising physical contact between the parents.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs of the proceedings on indemnity basis and in the alternative party/party costs – Consideration of relevant principles under s 117 of the Act – Where the Court is satisfied there are justifying circumstances to make an order for costs – Consideration of indemnity costs – Circumstances do not justify indemnity costs – Application for costs on the costs application refused – Costs to be paid as agreed or assessed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the respondent mother seeks to set aside orders made ex parte in her absence – where the Court discharges orders made on 9 September 2025 in circumstances where the Court is satisfied that the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure of all facts relevant to the application.

PARENTING – INTERIM PARENTING – Where the father makes allegations of family violence against the mother – Where the father makes allegations as to the mother’s parenting capacity – Where the Court is concerned that the father makes allegations in circumstances where the father has failed to make full and frank disclosure of all facts relevant to the application – Where the Court finds that the mother does not present a risk of harm to the children – Where the Court finds that the mother was the children’s primary carer.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives - Best interests of child - Where consent orders are proposed pending delivery of judgment – Where orders pending judgment were not followed - Whether consent orders are in the children’s best interests - Where the children hold strong views as to whom they should live with – Where the father poses a risk of psychological harm – Where the father does not pose a sexual risk – Where it is still in the children’s best interests to live with the father in accordance with their views.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Interim application made by the third respondent to restrain the wife’s current solicitors from continuing to act for her – Where the third respondent and the husband each had brief telephone conversations with the wife’s current solicitors prior to the wife engaging those solicitors – Where the court is not satisfied that the wife’s solicitors received confidential information which might imperil the interests of the third respondent – Where the interests of justice considerations favour the wife being permitted to continue to engage her solicitors – Application to restrain the wife’s solicitors from continuing to act dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final Orders – Where each of the parties have made a myriad of financial and non-financial contributions over a 30 year marriage – Where the wife contends contribution-based finding of 60 per cent in her favour due to homemaker duties and caring responsibilities – Where the husband contends a contribution-based finding of 55 per cent in his favour due to direct financial contributions of himself, financial contributions of his family, and contributions to the business – Where each of the parties contend a further adjustment pursuant to s 79(5) of the Act.

PROPERTY – Family violence – Where each party contends the other perpetrated family violence – Where there was no cross-examination on allegations of family violence – Where neither counsel sought to identify in submissions the evidence that would support the requisite finding – Where the Court adopts the same approach and does not have regard to it.

PROPERTY – Non-financial contributions of family members – Where each of the parties assert that non-financial contributions were made by the other party’s parents both in support of the parties’ children and the husband – Consideration of s 79(4) of the Act – Where s 79(4)(c) of the Act directs to contributions by a party – Where neither grandparent is a party.

PROPERTY – Characterisation of advancement of monies as loan or gift – Where the husband contends $1 million was loaned from his mother– Where the parties are at issue as to whether it was a loan or gift – Where the wife agreed for the monies to be returned to his mother – Where the husband’s mother asserted it was a loan to both parties and was paid back – Where the husband’s mother was not required for cross-examination – Where the Court accepts her evidence – Where it was a loan to both parties and interest was paid, the Court was not satisfied that the husband gets the sole benefit of it as contribution on his behalf.

PROPERTY – Waste – Where the wife contended that the husband had expended a large sum of money on his hobbies related to the keeping of fish and birds – Where the wife contended that this constituted waste in circumstances where the money was devoted solely to the husband’s benefit and not to the benefit of the family – Where there was no evidence as to the quantum applied by the husband to this hobby – Where the elements of waste were not established.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – Consideration of the conjunctive threshold tests in s 90SK and s 90SD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where a person who is ordinarily resident is a question of fact – Where the parties spent four periods aggregating 12 months out of their 13-year relationship in Australia and spent the remaining 12 years living in Europe – Where the applicant fails to establish that she was ordinarily resident in a participating jurisdiction at the date of the application for s 90SM and s 90SE orders – Where the applicant did not make substantial contributions in a participating jurisdiction – Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Section 65DAAA – Change of Circumstances – Where the father frequently travels overseas to attend to family and has been absent from child’s life for some time – Where relationship with father broken down – Where the Child does not wish to maintain relationship with father – Where father has taken no steps to ameliorate the relationship.

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

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – International relocation – Where the mother has unilaterally relocated two of the parties’ three children to New Zealand – Where the mother proposes that the parties’ three children live with her in New Zealand – Where the father seeks orders for the children to live with the mother but live proximate to him – Where the court finds that the mother’s relocation application should be the subject of a final hearing – Orders made which require the mother and the children to return to the Commonwealth of Australia – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and for the younger children to spend time with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where each of the parents contended at the commencement of the trial that the other posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the safety of the children – Where the maternal grandmother also sought parenting orders – Where the mother contended that the maternal grandmother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the safety of the children – Where the proceeding consumed a disproportionate amount of judicial and administrative resources in Division 2 prior to transfer including the preparation of four family reports – Where allegations are made as to physical and psychological abuse occasioned to the children, neglect, family violence, engaging the children in and exposing them to unrelenting entrenched conflict between the adults – Where a child has been unilaterally retained by each of the father and the maternal grandmother – Where at the conclusion of the trial the parties agreed that the mother would have sole decision-making authority in respect of all major long-term issues for the children and that the children would live with the mother – Orders made that the children not spend time with the father – Orders made for the father to communicate with the children – Orders made that the maternal grandmother not spend time with or communicate with the children – s 68B injunctions made – Injunction restraining the mother from legally changing the children’s surnames.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - where both parents are afflicted by mental illness - where the child lives with the applicant and spends regular time with the respondent - where the applicant wishes to reside with the child overseas - where the applicant asserted that she and the child would receive more financial and emotional support overseas - where the applicant's assertions were not borne out on the evidence - where the applicant's affidavit was inaccurate and inconsistent with her oral evidence - where it was found that the child's best interests are promoted by the child remaining in Australia with the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where wife seeks orders enjoining third parties from terminating an informal lease arrangement with respect to farming property held by a family trust – Where third parties seek ejectment of spouse parties and entity controlled by spouse parties from farming property – Where wife asserts that the entirety of the farming property should form part of the assets to be divided between spouse parties pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where wife’s ultimate claim against the third parties is for a remedial constructive trust founded on proprietary estoppel.

INJUNCTIONS – Where husband seeks orders restraining wife from attending at farm property and removing her from operational control of farming enterprise.

FAMILY LAW – Children – Interim hearing – mitigation of risks – child to live with the mother – child to spend time with the father on alternate weekends.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where the parties had a 20-year relationship – Where the wife has in interest in two properties in Country B – Where the wife argued that the Country B properties represented a “financial resource” as opposed to “property” – Where the Court finds that the Country B properties are amenable to an order for adjustment – Where the Court finds that the ordinary principles applicable under s 79 of the Act apply.

PROPERTY - Where the parties were the beneficiary of rent-free accommodation as a consequence of the generosity of the maternal family during the relationship – Where the Court finds that such generosity represents a significant contribution on behalf of the wife.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where no application made pursuant to s 7 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1991 (Cth) – Where the husband had no evidence to meet s 102C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or rr 15.16 and 15.17 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – REVIEW APPLICATION – Where the applicant sought a review of interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for a change in the child’s residency – Where the applicant’s mental health was a significant issue in dispute – Where the application for review was dismissed – Where the applicant was granted leave to file another application in a proceeding seeking new interim parenting orders upon the receipt of a single expert report addressing their mental health.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Overseas travel – Where the mother has insufficient ties to Australia to assure the Court of the return of the child – Where the mother does not have the means to provide a sum sufficient to ensure the return of the children – Application dismissed.

PARENTING – Appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – LIQUIDATOR – Where the wife sought to discharge orders appointing receivers to a group of companies – Where the wife sought the appointment of liquidators and the consequent winding up of the companies – Where the husband opposed the application citing issues of costs – Where the third respondent proposed that the current receiver be appointed the liquidator – Where potential issues as to conflict of interest arise if the current receiver is appointed liquidator – Orders made terminating the appointment of receiver, the winding up of the companies, and the appointment of a liquidator.