Whilst it is not unusual for a parent to want to revisit Orders that they are not happy with, and such attempts do not appear to have abated since the introduction of section 65DAAA to the Family Law Act, one would expect that it would take longer than three days for a change in circumstances to be established.
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
Parties in property proceedings often have difficulty in taking a commercial approach to those proceedings. Unfortunately, that failure can often result in a significant costs order. In the Division 2 decision of His Honour, Judge Shoebridge, Sprule & Mollis [2025] FedCFamC2F 458 the parties reached agreement
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whilst it is not unusual for a parent to want to revisit Orders that they are not happy with, and such attempts do not appear to have abated since the introduction of section 65DAAA to the Family Law Act, one would expect that it would take longer than three days for a change in circumstances to be established.
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
Parties in property proceedings often have difficulty in taking a commercial approach to those proceedings. Unfortunately, that failure can often result in a significant costs order. In the Division 2 decision of His Honour, Judge Shoebridge, Sprule & Mollis [2025] FedCFamC2F 458 the parties reached agreement
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
