Family Law Education Network

Menu
Instagram Linkedin Facebook-f Youtube

Tag: Federal Circuit and Family Court

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

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

Demir & Ozden – No Contact Orders Made After 11 Years of Silence

10/04/2025

This matter involved a female child, X, who was 13 years of age at the time of the hearing in November 2024. X lived in Melbourne with her father and stepmother whilst the mother lived in Queensland. At trial the mother was self-represented and initially sought primary residence but amended that to a shared care arrangement, notwithstanding the residences of the parents.

| 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

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

Demir & Ozden – No Contact Orders Made After 11 Years of Silence

10/04/2025

This matter involved a female child, X, who was 13 years of age at the time of the hearing in November 2024. X lived in Melbourne with her father and stepmother whilst the mother lived in Queensland. At trial the mother was self-represented and initially sought primary residence but amended that to a shared care arrangement, notwithstanding the residences of the parents.

| Read More

Most Read

Flow us

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Most Popular

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in