Family Law Education Network

Menu
Instagram Linkedin Facebook-f Youtube

Tag: Division 1

Evelyn & Kozel [2025] FedCFamC1A 171

28/09/2025

Limitation dates in property matters

Missing a limitation date can be fatal and such enquiries should be foremost in one’s mind when taking initial instructions. If the parties were married then whether or not they are divorced is important but the length of the separation not so much. However, if the parties were in a de facto relationship the date of separation is most important. If the client is close to, or even later than, the two-year separation period then it is

| Read More

Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159

23/09/2025

Harmful Proceedings Orders are being made more often it would seem and also in property proceedings, as opposed to parenting matters. In the case of Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159 His Honour, Schonell J, determined an attempt by the applicant to cross-appeal from a decision in Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531.

| 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

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

Saidov & Saidov – Appealing Orders That No Longer Exist

19/05/2025

This was a decision of His Honour, Austin J, where the Appellant mother sought to appeal the refusal of an adjournment application made part way through the trial of the substantive proceedings. The mother had not attended Court on that day, during what was a very lengthy trial, and as a result the father sought Interim Orders pending the outcome of those proceedings. That was supported by the ICL and thereafter Interim Orders were made, on 6 February 2025, reversing the primary residence of the children and placing them in the father’s care. Further Interim Orders were made on 14 February 2025.

| Read More

Rapallino & Dekker – When One Appeal Fails, Don’t File Another

15/05/2025

Rapallino & Dekker (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 60 was a decision of His Honour, Aldridge J, in respect of property settlement proceedings that had been before a Division 1 Judge. In those proceedings the Appellant Wife was to receive 65%of the asset pool. Thereafter the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, within time, and the appeal was then heard on 12 February 2025 by a full bench of their Honours, Aldridge, Gill & Strum JJ, and dismissed. At that point the issue of costs had not been determined with the parties to file written submissions in that regard.

| Read More

Evelyn & Kozel [2025] FedCFamC1A 171

28/09/2025

Limitation dates in property matters

Missing a limitation date can be fatal and such enquiries should be foremost in one’s mind when taking initial instructions. If the parties were married then whether or not they are divorced is important but the length of the separation not so much. However, if the parties were in a de facto relationship the date of separation is most important. If the client is close to, or even later than, the two-year separation period then it is

| Read More

Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159

23/09/2025

Harmful Proceedings Orders are being made more often it would seem and also in property proceedings, as opposed to parenting matters. In the case of Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159 His Honour, Schonell J, determined an attempt by the applicant to cross-appeal from a decision in Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531.

| 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

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

Saidov & Saidov – Appealing Orders That No Longer Exist

19/05/2025

This was a decision of His Honour, Austin J, where the Appellant mother sought to appeal the refusal of an adjournment application made part way through the trial of the substantive proceedings. The mother had not attended Court on that day, during what was a very lengthy trial, and as a result the father sought Interim Orders pending the outcome of those proceedings. That was supported by the ICL and thereafter Interim Orders were made, on 6 February 2025, reversing the primary residence of the children and placing them in the father’s care. Further Interim Orders were made on 14 February 2025.

| Read More

Rapallino & Dekker – When One Appeal Fails, Don’t File Another

15/05/2025

Rapallino & Dekker (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 60 was a decision of His Honour, Aldridge J, in respect of property settlement proceedings that had been before a Division 1 Judge. In those proceedings the Appellant Wife was to receive 65%of the asset pool. Thereafter the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, within time, and the appeal was then heard on 12 February 2025 by a full bench of their Honours, Aldridge, Gill & Strum JJ, and dismissed. At that point the issue of costs had not been determined with the parties to file written submissions in that regard.

| Read More

Most Read

Flow us

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Most Popular

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in