The Family Court of Western Australia dismissed a mother’s application to have parenting proceedings determined in a non-Convention country, finding the children remained habitually resident in Australia and that jurisdiction under the Family Law Act was clearly established.
By majority, the Court of Appeal of Western Australia held that provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA) excluding same-sex couples from eligibility for a parentage order were inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and inoperative under s 109 of the Constitution, quashing the WA Reproductive Technology Council’s refusal to approve a same-sex couple’s surrogacy arrangement.
Leave to appeal refused even though the primary judge erred in treating s 90AF as a free-ranging power without first identifying a relevant proprietary interest. The error was immaterial because a conceded tracing claim supported the injunctions under s 114, and the decision sets out the procedural care required for ex parte orders against non-parties.
Full Court granted leave to appeal on the arguable question of whether the criminal standard of proof should apply to contravention proceedings under Part XIIIA that result in an order for imprisonment. The case turns on the unresolved tension between the long-standing authority of Lindsey and the High Court’s reasoning in Witham v Holloway, with the substantive appeal still to be heard.
In a property settlement after a 20-year marriage, the appeal court held that the trial judge wrongly assessed each category of contribution separately and then added them together, rather than weighing all contributions holistically as the law requires.
Re-exercising the discretion, the Court awarded the wife 65 per cent, giving significant weight to an inheritance she received that made up nearly half the asset pool.
During enforcement of family law property orders, a solicitor was referred to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after helping his client arrange borrowings that breached court orders, well beyond the limit the court had permitted, while also acting for a separately represented party in the same transactions.
The Court made no findings of misconduct and referred the matter for investigation only, reinforcing that a family lawyer’s paramount duty to the court can be breached by facilitating a client’s non-compliance.
Unfortunately, as a result of delays in finalising matters, there will often be circumstances where one party has remained in the family home since separation whilst the other party has paid rent elsewhere. This is less of an inequity where the family home is encumbered and the remaining party is meeting the outgoings but where that property is unencumbered it can result in a significant inequity. The latter was the situation in Woodbridge & Woodbridge [2026] FedCFamC1F 211, which came before His Honour, Strum J, on an application by the wife to sell the former family home so that she may receive a lump sum, by way of partial property settlement, to fund the proceedings.
Child support can be a minefield for even the most seasoned of practitioners and whilst we are not often required to provide representation before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), clients will often seek assistance in respect of the process and likely outcomes.
Parenting proceedings listed for a 7-day trial before Justice O’Brien in the Family Court of Western Australia. Between them, the parties sought to call evidence from 25 witnesses.
The rise in prescriptions for medical cannabis can pose significant challenges in parenting proceedings for whilst the prescription may make it legal to consume cannabis it doesn’t negate the possible impact upon that parent’s conduct and how that may affect his/her ability to care for the children.
The Family Court of Western Australia dismissed a mother’s application to have parenting proceedings determined in a non-Convention country, finding the children remained habitually resident in Australia and that jurisdiction under the Family Law Act was clearly established.
By majority, the Court of Appeal of Western Australia held that provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA) excluding same-sex couples from eligibility for a parentage order were inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and inoperative under s 109 of the Constitution, quashing the WA Reproductive Technology Council’s refusal to approve a same-sex couple’s surrogacy arrangement.
Leave to appeal refused even though the primary judge erred in treating s 90AF as a free-ranging power without first identifying a relevant proprietary interest. The error was immaterial because a conceded tracing claim supported the injunctions under s 114, and the decision sets out the procedural care required for ex parte orders against non-parties.
Full Court granted leave to appeal on the arguable question of whether the criminal standard of proof should apply to contravention proceedings under Part XIIIA that result in an order for imprisonment. The case turns on the unresolved tension between the long-standing authority of Lindsey and the High Court’s reasoning in Witham v Holloway, with the substantive appeal still to be heard.
In a property settlement after a 20-year marriage, the appeal court held that the trial judge wrongly assessed each category of contribution separately and then added them together, rather than weighing all contributions holistically as the law requires.
Re-exercising the discretion, the Court awarded the wife 65 per cent, giving significant weight to an inheritance she received that made up nearly half the asset pool.
During enforcement of family law property orders, a solicitor was referred to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after helping his client arrange borrowings that breached court orders, well beyond the limit the court had permitted, while also acting for a separately represented party in the same transactions.
The Court made no findings of misconduct and referred the matter for investigation only, reinforcing that a family lawyer’s paramount duty to the court can be breached by facilitating a client’s non-compliance.
Unfortunately, as a result of delays in finalising matters, there will often be circumstances where one party has remained in the family home since separation whilst the other party has paid rent elsewhere. This is less of an inequity where the family home is encumbered and the remaining party is meeting the outgoings but where that property is unencumbered it can result in a significant inequity. The latter was the situation in Woodbridge & Woodbridge [2026] FedCFamC1F 211, which came before His Honour, Strum J, on an application by the wife to sell the former family home so that she may receive a lump sum, by way of partial property settlement, to fund the proceedings.
Child support can be a minefield for even the most seasoned of practitioners and whilst we are not often required to provide representation before the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), clients will often seek assistance in respect of the process and likely outcomes.
Parenting proceedings listed for a 7-day trial before Justice O’Brien in the Family Court of Western Australia. Between them, the parties sought to call evidence from 25 witnesses.
The rise in prescriptions for medical cannabis can pose significant challenges in parenting proceedings for whilst the prescription may make it legal to consume cannabis it doesn’t negate the possible impact upon that parent’s conduct and how that may affect his/her ability to care for the children.
