This was the final hearing of a matter with a long history before the Court and, as such, was Judgment number six. It involved a female child, X, who was 14 years old at the time of the hearing in November 2024 and living in Queensland with her father. The Orders provided for X to live with the father and spend very, very limited time with the mother who resided in Melbourne.
If you have followed the social science research publications and related case law over the years you will be familiar with the concept of young children, especially those not yet of school age, not spending a lot of overnight time away from their primary carer – usually their mother. This can be even more so the case when the parents had never lived together or separated when the child was very young. The result of this can be a long road to establishing a bond between the child and the other parent who has not been the primary carer, but what happens when even over time the primary carer cannot facilitate a meaningful relationship with the other parent.
As legal practitioners we are always judged on our conduct, whether it be with our clients, other practitioners or, more seriously, the Court. We are human and bound to err at some point in our careers but it’s what we do following any such error that could make or break us.
Proceedings for an adjustment of property interests where the parties were married must be commenced within 12 months of the granting of a Certificate of Divorce (s44(3B)(c)) or within two years of separation for de facto relationships (s44(5)). If it is outside of those time limitations then it is necessary to seek an extension of time to commence proceedings.
Spousal Maintenance is possibly one of the most expensive applications in terms of legal costs and often commented upon by Judicial Officers as the cost being higher than the gain. One such saga played out recently in the matter of Raymond & Raymond.
In property settlement matters, one of the more difficult preparation tasks can be the Balance Sheet. Parties are often at odds with the values to be attributed to certain items and this will generally result in the appointment of Single Experts to value even seemingly insignificant assets. For that reason, it is not uncommon, and generally welcomed by the parties, to look to lay sources such as market appraisals for real estate or Redbook searches for motor vehicles and the like. But what happens if no agreement is reached on values, the parties don’t reach agreement, and the matter proceeds to hearing with only lay evidence of valuations?
When matters proceed to hearing and a Judge has to determine the outcome, it is often the case that a witness’ credit looms large in such a decision. That is, should the evidence of one of the parties be preferred over another and, if so, how does that impact the overall outcome?
When solicitors brief Counsel, whether it be for a hearing or to provide an advice/opinion, they are entrusting their client’s case to that Counsel. It is unlikely that a solicitor ever checks to ensure that Counsel is in fact entitled to practise. In a Division 1, first instance decision of Schnur & Urbina [2024] FedCFamC1F 374, the Court was required to deal with such an issue.
In Ogilvie & Farnam [2024] FedCFamC2F 793 the Court made Interlocutory Orders restraining the Husband from instructing a particular law firm to act for him in the proceedings before the Court, as his ‘intimate partner’, Ms P, was a partner of that firm. The Wife sought the injunction to cover the entire firm and not just Ms P. That legal practitioner had acted for the husband for some two years. It was not disclosed at what point she became the Husband’s ‘intimate partner’ however, the evidence was that the Wife only became aware of the relationship seven weeks prior to filing her Application in a Proceeding.
It is quite common for Orders involving the transfer or sale of property to include an Order pursuant to section 106A of the FLA permitting a party to approach a Registrar of the Court where the other party has refused to execute a necessary document, quite often the Transfer.
This was the final hearing of a matter with a long history before the Court and, as such, was Judgment number six. It involved a female child, X, who was 14 years old at the time of the hearing in November 2024 and living in Queensland with her father. The Orders provided for X to live with the father and spend very, very limited time with the mother who resided in Melbourne.
If you have followed the social science research publications and related case law over the years you will be familiar with the concept of young children, especially those not yet of school age, not spending a lot of overnight time away from their primary carer – usually their mother. This can be even more so the case when the parents had never lived together or separated when the child was very young. The result of this can be a long road to establishing a bond between the child and the other parent who has not been the primary carer, but what happens when even over time the primary carer cannot facilitate a meaningful relationship with the other parent.
As legal practitioners we are always judged on our conduct, whether it be with our clients, other practitioners or, more seriously, the Court. We are human and bound to err at some point in our careers but it’s what we do following any such error that could make or break us.
Proceedings for an adjustment of property interests where the parties were married must be commenced within 12 months of the granting of a Certificate of Divorce (s44(3B)(c)) or within two years of separation for de facto relationships (s44(5)). If it is outside of those time limitations then it is necessary to seek an extension of time to commence proceedings.
Spousal Maintenance is possibly one of the most expensive applications in terms of legal costs and often commented upon by Judicial Officers as the cost being higher than the gain. One such saga played out recently in the matter of Raymond & Raymond.
In property settlement matters, one of the more difficult preparation tasks can be the Balance Sheet. Parties are often at odds with the values to be attributed to certain items and this will generally result in the appointment of Single Experts to value even seemingly insignificant assets. For that reason, it is not uncommon, and generally welcomed by the parties, to look to lay sources such as market appraisals for real estate or Redbook searches for motor vehicles and the like. But what happens if no agreement is reached on values, the parties don’t reach agreement, and the matter proceeds to hearing with only lay evidence of valuations?
When matters proceed to hearing and a Judge has to determine the outcome, it is often the case that a witness’ credit looms large in such a decision. That is, should the evidence of one of the parties be preferred over another and, if so, how does that impact the overall outcome?
When solicitors brief Counsel, whether it be for a hearing or to provide an advice/opinion, they are entrusting their client’s case to that Counsel. It is unlikely that a solicitor ever checks to ensure that Counsel is in fact entitled to practise. In a Division 1, first instance decision of Schnur & Urbina [2024] FedCFamC1F 374, the Court was required to deal with such an issue.
In Ogilvie & Farnam [2024] FedCFamC2F 793 the Court made Interlocutory Orders restraining the Husband from instructing a particular law firm to act for him in the proceedings before the Court, as his ‘intimate partner’, Ms P, was a partner of that firm. The Wife sought the injunction to cover the entire firm and not just Ms P. That legal practitioner had acted for the husband for some two years. It was not disclosed at what point she became the Husband’s ‘intimate partner’ however, the evidence was that the Wife only became aware of the relationship seven weeks prior to filing her Application in a Proceeding.
It is quite common for Orders involving the transfer or sale of property to include an Order pursuant to section 106A of the FLA permitting a party to approach a Registrar of the Court where the other party has refused to execute a necessary document, quite often the Transfer.
