Category: Case Summaries

Jakobsson & Jakobsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 137

02/09/2025

The decision in Jakobsson & Jakobsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 137 involved a consideration of addbacks post the June 2025 amendments to the Family Law Act (‘FLA’). The matter came before His Honour, Schonell J, on appeal from a Division 2 Judge. Orders were made in December 2024, following the primary proceedings, involving, inter alia, a finding that the appellant had not accounted for funds removed from his Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) which were then added back on the Balance sheet.

| Read More

Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126

02/09/2025

Addbacks in property settlement matters had been a part of our landscape for some time. Indeed, a pro forma Balance Sheet that specifically allowed for addbacks was created for use in the then Family Court and continues to be so.

| Read More

Friseal & Friseal [2025] FedCFamC1A 102

16/08/2025

At a time when family violence is foremost in our minds and there have been many changes to the legislation to recognise the impact of family violence it seems unusual that a Division 2 Judge would seem to completely dismiss verified instances of serious risk but that is what happened in Friseal & Friseal [2025] FedCFamC2F 75, a case in Hobart that also involved the Department for Education, Children and Young People (“the Department”) as an intervener.

| Read More

Zyma & Begum (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 109

16/08/2025

There are times when the Court makes Orders that are not in fact enforceable. That was the situation in Zyma & Begum (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 109, an appeal before Justice Christie from Division 2 Parenting Orders made on 20 January 2025, in Begum & Zyma [2025] FedCFamC2F 5. Those proceedings involved a child who was five years old at the time of the hearing in late 2024, albeit those proceedings had commenced in 2023.

| Read More

Amiti & Vata [2025] FedCFamC2F 476

16/08/2025

The Division 2 case of Amiti & Vata [2025] FedCFamC2F 476 involved two children aged approximately 10 and six by the time of the proceedings in early 2025. The parties had, in fact, been separated since 2020, with ad hoc arrangements since that time. Those arrangements only provided for one afternoon and one overnight per week. Those arrangements were likely to have been entirely suitable at separation when the children were very young but the mother appeared resistant to any change.

| Read More

Catlin & Catlin [2025] FedCFamC1A 110

16/08/2025

The matter of Catlin & Catlin [2025] FedCFamC1A 110 was an Appeal filed by the husband in respect of the enforcement of property settlement Consent Orders, made on 22 July 2016. As at the date of filing her Enforcement Application the husband had not complied with any of the 2016 Orders. That Enforcement Application was heard and Orders made by Berman J on 7 February 2025.

| Read More

Oberon & Aquila (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 400

16/08/2025

This was a judgment from one of our more recent Division 2 appointments, Judge Colquhoun. Her Honour had made property settlement Orders on 7 February 2024 (“the 2024 Orders”) however, the parties were now in dispute as to the interpretation of one of those Orders – The Trustee is empowered to take possession of the [Suburb C] property and require vacant possession in order to effect a sale of the [Suburb C] property.

| Read More

Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126

04/08/2025

The Full Court confirmed that addbacks are no longer permissible in the traditional sense. Following the commencement of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024, section 79(3)(a)(i) now mandates that only existing legal and equitable rights and interests can be included in the pool for adjustment.

| Read More

Case Summaries

03/07/2025

Stay sharp with the latest family law case insights. This space brings together real-world examples, commentary and practical takeaways from recent decisions in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

From enforcement missteps to representation pitfalls, these case updates are a quick way to reflect, review, and refine your practice — so you can avoid the mistakes others make.

| Read More

Daalman & Daalman – Wrong Path Taken: Review Dismissed, Appeal Denied

25/05/2025

Daalman & Daalman [2025] FedCFamC1A 33 was an appeal from a decision of a Div 2 Judge. Orders had been made in the lower proceedings in the absence of the appellant wife, dismissing her Application for Review of a registrar’s decision. Interim Orders had been made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for the sale of a property, an interim distribution to both parties and the balance of funds to be held in a controlled monies account pending the final hearing.

| Read More

Category: Case Summaries

Jakobsson & Jakobsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 137