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.
Applications for nullity of a marriage are not very common in Australia. More often than not they are for religious reasons such as wanting to remarry where the person’s faith does not permit marrying in a church for a divorcee. Section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), as amended, sets out the grounds upon which a marriage may be void, which can be summarised as:
Prior to March 2004, it was the usual process for parties to each retain a valuer, whether it be for a business, the family home or any other asset that required valuing. If there was a difference between valuers they were then required to ‘hot tub’ and come up with a joint statement setting out any areas of agreement and any areas of continued disagreement. That process occupied a lot of court time and was quite expensive for the parties. In March 2004 there were a plethora of new rules introduced, most notably dealing with the appointment of single experts and also the requirement to disclose any other valuation evidence such as market appraisals, thus preventing parties from ‘shopping around’. Those rules have continued to evolve over time to the current rules, being the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). We now have a process where one party (usually the applicant) will submit the names of three proposed experts, the other party will choose, and then a joint letter of appointment is prepared. The parties should have minimal interaction with that expert, other than to provide the requested information or access.
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.
Applications for nullity of a marriage are not very common in Australia. More often than not they are for religious reasons such as wanting to remarry where the person’s faith does not permit marrying in a church for a divorcee. Section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), as amended, sets out the grounds upon which a marriage may be void, which can be summarised as:
Prior to March 2004, it was the usual process for parties to each retain a valuer, whether it be for a business, the family home or any other asset that required valuing. If there was a difference between valuers they were then required to ‘hot tub’ and come up with a joint statement setting out any areas of agreement and any areas of continued disagreement. That process occupied a lot of court time and was quite expensive for the parties. In March 2004 there were a plethora of new rules introduced, most notably dealing with the appointment of single experts and also the requirement to disclose any other valuation evidence such as market appraisals, thus preventing parties from ‘shopping around’. Those rules have continued to evolve over time to the current rules, being the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). We now have a process where one party (usually the applicant) will submit the names of three proposed experts, the other party will choose, and then a joint letter of appointment is prepared. The parties should have minimal interaction with that expert, other than to provide the requested information or access.
