Judgments

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Actual bias – Apprehended bias – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge’s determination was tainted by actual or in the alternative apprehended bias – Where the appellant contended that the way in which the primary judge conducted the proceedings denied the appellant a fair hearing – Where the appellant contended that the primary judge prejudged the contributions and the s 75(2) adjustment – Where the primary judge did not make findings of fact on contested issues instead dismissing the appellant’s relief as a consequence of the appellant’s repeated failure to comply with directions – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in favour of respondent in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Recovery application – Where the parties’ eldest child is living with the father and refusing to return to the care of the mother who has filed a recovery application – Where it is necessary to determine interim arrangements for the child pending the completion of final hearing – Where the child is aged 14 ½ and it is clear he will not return to the mother – Orders made for the child to live with the father and for the father to have sole parental responsibility in relation to education – Final hearing adjourned pending the completion of a further family report.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Threshold issue – Where the applicant sought a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that a de facto relationship existed – Where the respondent asserts she is impecunious – Where the applicant submits there is no utility in seeking a declaration that a de facto relationship existed in circumstances where there is unlikely to be any orders for the adjustment of property between the parties – Where all extant applications in respect of property are dismissed by consent and the proceedings are finalised.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the children live with the maternal grandfather and spend time with the parents – Where the parties agree that the children should live with the mother and she should have joint decision making authority with the maternal grandfather – Where there is a dispute as to what time the father spends with the children – Where there are allegations of serious family violence including coercive control made by the mother against the father - Consideration of what orders will best promote the children’s safety – Orders made for the father to spend time with the children one day per fortnight – Orders made for the maternal grandfather to spend time with the children – Where the children are of Aboriginal heritage – Consideration of what orders will ensure their connection to their culture.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the Respondent sought the primary judge be disqualified from hearing the proceedings – Where the Respondent had made three unsuccessful attempts to disqualify the primary judge – Where only the disqualification application to which the present costs application relates has proceeded to argument and judgment – Application for an indemnity costs order in relation to both the disqualification application and the costs application – Where offers were exchanged in attempt to resolve the costs application – Where the court considers there to be justifying circumstances for the making of a costs order in relation to both the disqualification application and the costs application – Where the Court is not satisfied that the all of the costs incurred were reasonable and/or proportionate – Where the Court declines to make an order for indemnity costs – Costs ordered fixed in the amount of $16,000.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the final hearing of the matter is part-heard – Where the parties have reached agreement to finalise the parenting proceedings – Where there has been non-compliance with interlocutory orders for time spending between the father and the child – Where the Court has an obligation to make orders least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child – Where the Court has been assured that both parties are committed to complying with the proposed orders – Final parenting orders are made by consent.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the parents have a high level of conflict – Where the now teenage children are expressing views regarding parenting proceedings – Where no orders were made regarding the older child who is approaching 18 years – Where interim Orders were made for the younger child to spend unsupervised time with the mother during the school holiday period.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JOINDER – Injunctive relief sought – Orders made for joinder of some parties – Applications for injunctions dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Recovery order – Where parties’ eldest child has refused to return to the mother’s care in line with existing orders – Where a recovery application was made by the mother four days prior to the commencement of final hearing – Where the child was residing with the father and orders were made for him on the first morning of trial to meet with a Court Child Expert in City B on the second afternoon of trial – Memorandum prepared by Court Child Expert indicates that the child would not feel safe returning to the mother’s care – Orders made regarding who the child is to live with – Child to live with the father and remain in the Canberra region pending the making of further orders.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim application – Where applicant in substantive proceedings seeks property adjustment orders pursuant to Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90SM – Where respondent to substantive proceedings seeks declaration under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90RD that de facto relationship did not exist – Where respondent seeks order for separate threshold hearing to determine whether de facto relationship existed – Where applicant opposes threshold hearing – Where threshold hearing would likely be lengthy – Where significant overlap likely between evidence adduced at hearing on threshold issue and at any final hearing – Where evidence overlap and anticipated witness credibility issues create risk of inefficiency and inconsistency – Where threshold hearing could avoid cost and delay in circumstances where there is a large pool, multiple assets and entities – Where there are likely to be significant issues remaining in dispute unless threshold hearing is determined in favour of the respondent – Where the overarching purpose is best promoted by not ordering a threshold hearing on issue of existence of de facto relationship – Application for threshold hearing dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of decision – Parenting – Where the paternal grandparents review interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar (“the registrar”), which provide for the children to spend supervised time with them – Where the paternal grandparents seek orders for the children to live with them and spend supervised time with the mother – Where the paternal grandparents assert the mother poses a risk of physical and psychological harm to the children – Where the mother has passed the psychological assessments given by the single expert – Where the younger child made allegations of his sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather – Where the allegations were not substantiated by the authorities but the risk of harm is not eradicated – Where the trial is the time and place to settle factual controversies – Where the father lives overseas and is not a residential option for the children – Orders made to vary the length of supervised time the children spend with the paternal grandparents.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother sought a stay of final consent orders pending hearing of her appeal – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the stay application – Where the mother’s appeal is listed for hearing in December 2024 – Where the Court is not satisfied that failing to grant a stay of the operation of the orders will render the mother's appeal nugatory – Where a change of the orders already in place pending appeal is not in the child’s best interests – Where orders are made dismissing the mother’s application for a stay.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the child has lived for significant periods of time within the homes of the paternal grandmother and the mother – Where the child has an underlying medical condition which requires therapeutic management – Where the paternal grandmother and the mother have a high level of conflict and mistrust – Where the father seeks to spend time with the child but acknowledges he is not an appropriate candidate for primary care of the child – Final Orders made for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father and paternal grandmother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Spend time with and progression of such time – Child experiences separation anxiety but needs more experience of the father and his household – Need to balance those matters – Prior allegations of physical discipline in the father’s household – Mother no longer seeks finding of unacceptable risk of abuse in father’s care – Lengthy period of litigation – No trust and ineffective communication between the parents – Where otherwise parents both have good parenting capacity – Where both parents seek an order for joint decision-making responsibility – Where mother seeks she be able to make certain decisions in the absence of agreement – Where such an order should be made to reduce the risk of further litigation –Where the mother seeks to change the child’s name to a hyphenated surname – Where such an order should be made – Where parents seek appointment of parenting coordinator – Where insufficient evidence as to appointment of parenting coordinator – Where orders made for time spent with father to progress – Where limited restraints are made.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY – Where the parties consented to the removal of caveats held by the Applicant against all real property – Where the Applicant sought that the Respondent be restrained, unless with the consent of the Applicant, from further encumbering the properties, giving any notice about or seeking or consenting to any order that affects any real property, making any agreement affecting any real property or dealing with them in any way – Where the Respondent opposed the injunction sought – Where an injunction is to issue in the terms roughly sought by the Applicant.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father is not present at the hearing – Where the father has not complied with orders – Where the father is not present in Australia and is unable to indicate when he may return – Where the matter is not in a position to proceed to trial because the father is not present in Australia – Where the court considers the father has not been prosecuting his case with due diligence – Where the father’s Application for Final Orders is struck out – Orders made in accordance with the mother’s Amended Response to Final Orders

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – best interests – undefended hearing – where the father withdrew from proceedings – where the matter is part-heard – where there are allegations of family violence and sexual abuse – where the father denies the allegations – where the mother seeks sole decision-making on major long-term issues and live with – where the mother seeks orders for no communication between the children and father – where the parties engaged in family therapy in the adjourned period – where the family therapist reported the matter cannot be progressed any further – where the phone communication between the father and children has not been positive – where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the mother’s application – order that mother have sole decision-making on major long-term issues – children live with mother – no orders for time with father.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband fails to make full and proper disclosure – Where the wife makes a Kennon claim – Where the husband fails to adduce corroborative evidence without explanation – Inference drawn – Contributions and s 75(2) factors following an adjustment to the wife – Small property pool– Holistic approach – Orders that 63.8 per cent net distribution to the wife – 36.2 distribution to the husband – Justice and Equity.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where leave was refused for the wife to join the father of the husband as second respondent in the substantive proceedings on the basis on equitable claims – Where the father seeks costs against the wife with respect to her equity suit – Where the wife made four attempts to plead a case against the father which increased his costs – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful – Where the wife rejected an offer of settlement – Costs ordered in favour of the father to be paid as agreed or assessed – Indemnity costs not justified. JURISDICTION – The Court as one of law and equity, pursuant to s 9(1)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) – Whether the equitable claims brought by the wife, not under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) but in the accrued jurisdiction of the Court, lay outside the operation of s 117 of the Act and costs should follow the “event” – Authority of the Court to decide claim to equitable relief – Where an exercise of the Court’s accrued jurisdiction becomes a “matrimonial cause” within paragraph (f) of the definition in s 4 of the Act as other proceedings “in relation to” the s 79 proceedings between the spouse parties – Where the wife’s invocation of s 78 and s 90AE of the Act to declare property interests against the father has the appropriate nexus to the spousal matrimonial cause – Costs to be determined according to s 117 of the Act.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS – Recovery order – Where the mother makes an application for an urgent ex parte recovery order – Where the father has failed to comply with the final orders – Where the father has failed to return the child to the mother – Where the mother is due to change the child’s country of residence in compliance with final orders imminently – Recovery order issued.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Just and equitable – Where both parties wish to retain a property – Where remaining property is subject of dispute – Where existing legal and equitable interests considered – Whether advances from family members have the character of loans – Where husband and wife are both shareholders in companies – Where valuation evidence inadequate - Whether there should be adjustments based on s 75(2) factors – No matters of principle.

INJUNCTIONS – Breach of orders – Where husband requested wife be injuncted from instructing her lawyers – Where wife sought litigation funding – Where husband asserted wife breached orders prohibiting encumbrance of assets by consenting to caveat over matrimonial home – Where husband failed to establish knowledge on behalf of wife’s lawyers – Where there was no aided breach of orders by wife’s lawyers – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the mother seeks her costs be paid by the father on an indemnity basis at a fixed sum – Where both the parenting and property hearings proceeded undefended and final orders were made in line with those sought by the mother – Where the application for costs in relation to the parenting proceedings was filed out of time – Where the father’s non-disclosure, non-filing of trial material and non-participation in the final hearings after having the previous hearing vacated to enable him to take part justify costs being granted on an indemnity basis at the sum sought by the mother.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the parties solemnised their marriage in Sydney – Where the parties believed that they were both unmarried at the time of solemnisation – Where the respondent had not validly terminated her marriage to a previous spouse – Where the applicant terminated the relationship with the respondent as a result of her non-disclosure – Decree of nullity ordered.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Gender Dysphoria – Where the child currently takes Stage 1 hormone treatment and wishes to move to Stage 2 treatment – Where the child is Gillick competent – Where the child’s medical practitioners and mother support the treatment – Where the father has not provided consent for the treatment and has not participated in the proceedings – Where the child has not communicated with or seen the father for some time – Where the child’s sibling has had sporadic and minimal contact with the father – Where the mother seeks sole decision making and parental responsibility for the children – Where the Court found that it was in the best interests of the children for mother to have sole decision making and parental responsibility for the children and for the child to undergo Stage 2 hormone treatment – Orders that children live with the mother – Orders that the children spend time with and communicate with the father as agreed between the parents from time to time.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Non-disclosure by respondent – Where only significant assets at the time of trial were shares in companies operated by respondent – Where companies since placed into liquidation – Whether just and equitable to make any order.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time to comply – Leave granted to make oral application to extend time to comply with orders – Direction for further mediation – Overarching purpose of the Federal Circuit and Family Court as contained in s 67 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) – No jurisdiction to commence parenting proceedings in Division 1.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the husband seeks orders adjusting their respective property interests – Relationship of less than seven years - Where the wife has not filed any documents and is self-represented – Where there is a current Family Violence Intervention Order against the wife enlivening s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the husband had significantly more assets at the commencement of cohabitation and made greater contributions – Where the wife has not provided full and frank financial disclosure –Where it is just and equitable to adjust the parties property interests – Where the contributions are assessed in a proportion of 90/10 in favour of the husband – Where an appropriate adjustment in favour of the wife is 2.5 per cent – Where the assets in the overall pool will be divided in the proportion of 12.5/87.5 in favour of the husband.

NULLITY – Application for decree of nullity – Where the wife concedes being married to another person as at the date of her purported marriage to the husband – Where both parties consent to decree of nullity being made – Decree of nullity made.

FAMILY LAW – SUBPOENA – Objection – Where the child’s psychologist objects to giving evidence in a final hearing –Where the therapeutic context was provided to a child who is an alleged victim of a sexual offence – Consideration of public interest immunity – Objection upheld.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by B Bank for removal of a Mareva Injunction – Where the parties are engaged in financial and children’s proceedings – Where ex parte orders were made by the Court on 4 September 2024 freezing two of the wife’s bank accounts – Application for removal of Mareva Injunction granted in circumstances where the Court is satisfied that there are two distinct customers and that the two bank accounts are not held in the name of the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Undefended hearing – Where the husband failed to comply with directions of this Court – Where the husband’s application was summarily dismissed – Where the husband contributed to proceedings in a limited manner – Where the wife sought a 100:0 adjustment in her favour – Where the husband’s initial and post-separation contributions heavily outweigh the wife’s – Where the wife’s contributions during the marriage were greater than the husband’s – Where the wife’s contributions were made significantly more arduous by virtue of family violence – Where the husband withdrew significant marital funds for personal use – Where the Court recognises an addback for the withdrawn funds – Where the Court orders a back payment for unpaid spousal maintenance – Order made for 70:30 division of property in favour of the wife.

INJUNCTION – Where the wife sought orders restraining the husband from publicising the results of these proceedings – Where the husband has a history of non-compliance with Court orders – Where an injunction against publication order is made – Where the wife sought injunctions against the husband for her personal protection – Where the wife suffered significant family violence during the marriage – Where the wife was palpably fearful of the husband – Where injunctions for the wife’s safety are ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where matter is heard on a “undefended” basis – Where father’s response has been struck out for want of prosecution – Where mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer seek orders for no time with the father – Where father has been convicted of multiple offences of family violence against the mother – Where father has used controlling and coercive behaviour against the mother – Illicit drug use – Factors present which increase the risk of lethality – Father has had a limited relationship with the children – Father has little to offer the children – Mother has good parenting capacity – Where orders made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where orders made restraining the father – Where orders made for the father to spend no time with the children – Where orders are made for the father to pay the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant husband seeks leave to appeal from child support orders – Application of Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692 – Where the applicant has not demonstrated that sufficient doubt attends the decision of the primary judge to warrant the grant of leave to appeal – No substantial injustice established if leave is refused – Where the appeal is otherwise without merit – Leave to appeal refused – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the matter was listed for Undefended Hearing – Where the Respondent sought to rely upon material filed in the incorrect form on a previous occasion – Respondent granted leave to rely on material and make submissions – Where the hearing proceeded on an undefended basis.

CHILDREN – Where the parties have been litigating for eight years – Where the children have not spent recent time with the Respondent due to incarceration arising from charges involving the perpetration of domestic violence upon another domestic partner – Final Orders made for the Applicant to have sole decision making and the children to live with the Applicant – Interim Orders made for the children to spend supervised time with the Respondent.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application for costs of substantive proceedings – Where the first respondent joined the second, third and fourth respondents (“the other respondents”) to the proceedings seeking relief directly against them but abandoned those claims after about 12 months – Where the other respondents make an application for the first respondent to pay their costs – Where the first respondent’s joinder of the other respondents was not futile – Where the financial circumstances of the other respondents are substantially superior to those of the first respondent – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – Where the mother seeks orders to share the joint decision-making – Where the father opposes the same – where the parties have been in high conflict litigation for five years – Where there is no co-parenting relationship – Where the parties are unable to communicate – Where the child previously lived with the mother – Where the mother was unable to take the child to school or provide appropriate levels of dental and hygiene care – Order for the father to have sole decision making.

CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time with – Where the child lives with the father and spends supervised time with the mother – Where the mother seeks orders for unsupervised time – Consideration of best interests – Where the child wishes to spend more time with the mother – Where the father supports the relationship provided it is safe – Consideration of risk – Where the mother uses illicit drugs  – Consideration of whether the mother’s parenting capacity when using illicit drugs – Whether the Court can be satisfied that when the child is in the mother’s care her parenting will not be compromised by illicit drug use – Consideration of whether the mother can ensure the child attend school – Where the risk can be ameliorated by appropriate orders – Orders made for the mother to spend unsupervised time with the child on a condition of urinalysis testing results.

FAMILY LAW – MAJOR COMPLEX FINANCIAL PROCEEDINGS LIST – practice and procedure – adjournment application by the second respondent on day one of trial – second respondent allegedly unable to travel from Country D due to medical condition – adjournment application granted.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – final orders by consent – where the parties have a modest property pool – where the wife has sole care of the children – where the husband pays no child support – where the husband has an acquired brain injury and his interests are represented by a litigation guardian – where each party is to receive a payment – 70/30 split in wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Previous final parenting orders made in 2018 for the child to live with the mother – Child transitioned into the father’s care under interim consent orders in June 2024 – Mother concedes the child live with the father – Consideration of the mother’s mental health – Where the mother’s account of her mental health conflicts with the evidence – Findings of family violence perpetrated by the mother – Historical findings of family violence perpetrated by the father – Where the child is safe and secure in the father’s care – Clear views expressed by the child – Counterproductive to force the child to spend time with the mother against his wishes – Where supervision can ameliorate the risk of harm posed to the child by the mother – Orders for the child to live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother on specified dates and in accordance with the child’s wishes.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application to re-open evidence – Application to remove administrators – Application to place company into liquidation.

FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PROPERTY –– Where administrators seek company vehicle keys in wife’s possession – Where company is legal owner of vehicle – Where wife asserts vehicle was a gift from husband – Where husband supports wife’s assertion – Where husband did not and could not transfer title of vehicle to wife – Where husband failed to perfect the gift – Wife ordered to return vehicle keys to company.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Oral application made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer to change the children’s residence – Where the mother informed the Court that she could not support or facilitate the children spending any time with the father – Interim Order made for the children to live with the father until the final hearing listed in less than three months.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Where the father presses an interim application to change the primary care of the child – Where the mother has fabricated a medical diagnosis, treatment and medical records - Where there has been an independent psychiatric evaluation of the mother undertaken by the single expert –Where the single expert considers the mother has an undiagnosed personality disorder – Where the single expert considers that the mother presents a risk of psychological and physical harm to the child - Where the mother makes recent allegations that the father has caused bruises to the child – Nature of interim hearing and fact finding - Where the mother’s evidence filed in these proceedings is not consistent with the reports she made to the child’s General Practitioner and school –– Assessment of whether the risk posed by the mother is chronic and underlying as against acute and immediate–– Where the Court cannot rule out that the mother has involved the child in her “deceptive behaviours” and incorporated the child into her “lies” – Where the Court considers the risk of harm posed by the mother is acute and immediate – Orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child – The child is to live with the father – Where it would be detrimental to the child’s emotional wellbeing to separate her from either parent – Orders for the mother to spend supervised time with the child twice per week pending the testing of all of the evidence at trial.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal against interlocutory spousal maintenance orders made in June 2023 – Where the applicant argues the respondent’s financial circumstances have changed – Where the applicant asserts the need for the immediate termination of the interim spousal orders – Where the applicant does not assert any legal, factual or discretionary error by the magistrate – Application for extension of time dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip rule – Where final orders amended pursuant to the slip rule – Reasons which did not reflect intention of the Court amended – Correction made under slip rule.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for order pursuant to s 102NA(1)(c)(iv).

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties were married for seven years – Where the husband had superior initial contributions – Where the parties made equal contributions during the relationship – Where the wife made superior contributions post-separation – Where the husband intentionally concealed assets – Consideration of Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 92-338 and Black and Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287 – Where the wife seeks an adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 – Where the husband’s conduct was found to have made the wife’s contributions more arduous – Two pools approach – Adjustment of property – Where a just and equitable outcome is that sale proceeds be divided as between the parties – Where 15 per cent adjustment made in favour of the wife – Where not just and equitable to adjust the superannuation interests of the parties.

PARENTING – Where the mother alleges the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children’s safety – Consideration of meaning of safety – Where the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm due to his mental health – Where there are allegations of family violence – Where the father poses an unacceptable risk of physical harm to the children – Where orders for the mother to hold sole parental responsibility made by consent – Whether the father should spend supervised time with the children – Where orders made for the father to spend only supervised time with the children – Long term supervision orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties have been married for 23 years – Where the husband is aged 70 and the wife is aged 56 – Consideration of contributions – Adjustment made on account of the wife’s greater initial contributions – Where neither party seeks an adjustment for s 75(2) factors – Consideration of addbacks – Where the husband seeks for legal fees to be added back – Where the legal fees have been paid from joint property – Legal fees added back – Where the wife asserts the parties owe their adult daughter $115,000 – No evidence presented regarding an oral or written loan – Alleged loan excluded – Orders.

PROPERTY – Superannuation – Where the husband has an interest in a pension – Where the pension is in the payment phase – Where no splitting order is sought by the wife – Where the wife seeks for the pension to be treated as property – Where the husband seeks for it to be treated as a financial resource – Consideration of the treatment of the pension – Consideration of Russo & Wyley (2016) FLC 93-47 – Where it is just and equitable to treat the pension as a financial resource.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for witnesses to appear by video link due to medical conditions – insufficient evidence provided – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Undefended Hearing – Where the Applicant husband has failed to continue to engage in the proceedings and meet his duty of full disclosure – Final property adjustment orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders –Where the wife sought orders for the children to live with the wife, sole parental responsibility to the wife, and the husband to only spend supervised time with the children – Where the husband conceded that the children should live with the wife, opposed sole parental responsibility to the wife, and sought that the children spend time with him in a fortnightly arrangement – Where the husband and wife both allege current illicit drug use of the other – Where there are allegations of family violence – Consideration of s 60CC – Where the Court must act cautiously as competing allegations are unable to be resolved – Where orders made for the children to live with the wife and to spend supervised time with the husband once a week.

PROPERTY – Interim orders – Where the wife sought interim property orders in two lump sums and then a periodic payment met from the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the husband sought interim property orders in equal lump sum payments to the husband the wife respectively – Where the Court is not satisfied that there are sufficient assets to make order sought by the husband – Where the Court is not satisfied that the order sought by the husband would be capable of being reversed or considered at a final hearing – Order made for interim property orders to the wife in the sum of $100,000.