Top Terms RSSThu, 21 Oct 2021 01:49:06 GMTPetrova & Leighton[2017] FCCA 315 - set out four factors the Court should be satisfied of if a matter is to be listed urgently:    (a) the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable basis for arguing for the substantive orders sought;(b) the applicant has demonstrated that, absent an urgent listing, the applicant will be prejudiced in relation to the substantive relief sought other than in ways common to other matters awaiting the Court’s attention in the normal course;(c) the applicant has demonstrated that there has been no unreasonable or unexplained delay in approaching the Court; and(d) a judicial officer is available to hear the substantive application.

]]>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:49:06 GMTDyer v Chrysanthou(No 2) (Injunction) [2021] FCA 641 - Justice Thawley identified two bases for the potential restraint of counsel: firstly, a restraint in respect of holding confidential information and secondly, and potentially overlapping the first, a restraint based upon consideration of the administration of justice. Nash v Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 957; (2019) 137 ACSR 189 - provides that the court will restrain a legal practitioner from continuing to act for a party if a reasonable person, informed of the relevant facts, might reasonably anticipate a danger of misuse of confidential information of a former client and that there is a real and sensible possibility that the interest of the practitioner in advancing the case might conflict with practitioner’s duty to keep the information confidential, and to refrain from using that information to the detriment of the former client.

]]>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 09:47:17 GMTScott & Scott (No.3) [2019] FamCA 936 - where it was held that application of the doctrine of undue influence to the evidence is not an exercise of mathematical precision; questions of degree are involved.

]]>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 12:12:29 GMTKalant & Jordain (No.3) [2021] FamCA 191 - where it was held that “it is not the purpose of contravention proceedings to punish, or to deter others, or to salve the irritation of the other parties to the litigation, or to denounce the non-compliant conduct”.  Oswin & Oswin [2019] FamCAFC 164 - confirms that the purpose of contravention proceedings is directed to future compliance.

]]>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 12:05:40 GMTWarren v Coombes(1978) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 - provided that the inferences drawn by the primary judge must have been wrong before the appellate court has the right to intercede and the duty to decide the question for itself.

]]>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 12:02:36 GMTCoghlan & Coghlan(2005) FLC 93-220; [2005] FamCA 429 - where if the parties’ interests in specific items of property differ or they have made differing contributions, it may be desirable to proceed upon an item by item basis in the division of the property between them.

]]>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 12:02:14 GMTAdamson and Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232; (2014) FLC 93-622 - the Full Court said that in parenting proceedings, an adverse credit finding against a parent should not only be necessary to determine the real issues joined between the parties but should be soundly based, with due allowance for the limitations referred to. Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 - Justice Kent in the Full Court said that as a general proposition, civil courts usually refrain from specific adverse credit findings against litigants if the disposition of the case can legitimately be achieved otherwise.   

]]>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:14:48 GMTPalmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27 - McMurdo JA (with whom Fraser and Gotterson JJA agreed) said that the determination of whether there exists a sufficiently serious risk of the dissipation of assets involves the evaluation of future possibilities, rather than the ascertainment of historical facts. Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128 - where the Court held that the applicant must show that there is a “danger” or risk of dissipation of or dealing with assets which will frustrate any judgment in favour of the applicant.

]]>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:03:41 GMTIn the Marriage of Bennett [1990] FamCA 148; (1990) 14 Fam LR 397 - explained that a Court has a discretion to determine whether there has been a sufficient change of circumstances, to justify the reopening of the parenting issues in respect of a child, which have earlier been determined, as either a discrete or preliminary issue, or after a full and exhaustive hearing of all the available evidence. King & Finneran [2009] FamCAFC 152; [2001] 42 Fam LR 1 - provided that the change of circumstances must be such that there is a “real likelihood” of a change. Digest Dwyer & Ireland (No 2) [2021] FCCA 86 (22 January 2021) - provides that a change in circumstances, however significant, that is not likely to result in any variation of existing orders or only a small variation would not justify reopening parenting issues or every parenting issue. 

]]>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 11:02:30 GMTAbrum & Abrum[2013] FamCA 897 - provides that a binding financial agreement deals with the parties’ rights in relation to the property or financial resources of the parties in a way that ousts the jurisdiction of the court to make orders in relation to that property or financial resource.  Black v Black [2008] FamCAFC 7; (2008) FLC 93-357 - preceded amendments which provides a pathway for how binding financial agreements can be saved.

]]>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:47:51 GMT