Digest Sani (a pseudonym) v Secretary of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing [2021] VSC 366 (23 June 2021) - The Children’s Court make may an interim accommodation order where a Protection Application is filed.  An interim accommodation order may provide for the release or placement of a child with the persons and organisations referred to in Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, s 263(1).

Navarro & Jurado [2010] FamCAFC 210; (2010) 247 FLR 374 - where the issue of forum is not a task that can be equated to a comparison of the relative merits of the competing forums.  Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay[1988] HCA 32; (1988) 165 CLR 197 - provided that the determination of whether Australia is an inappropriate forum requires a consideration of whether the conduct of the proceedings in Australia would be vexatious or oppressive, being seriously and unfairly burdensome, under circumstances where parties have a prima facie right to conduct proceedings where they have regularly invoked the jurisdiction. Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CL

Coghlan & 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.

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 - the majority of the High Court said that the manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course. It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion.

Hazeldell Ltd v The Commonwealth [1924] HCA 36; (1924) 34 CLR 442 - provides that in every matter that comes before a judicial officer, the first question that must be answered is whether or not they have jurisdiction to quell the dispute between the parties. DP v Commonwealth Central Authority (2001) 206 CLR 401; [2001] HCA 39 - provides for the reservation of the jurisdiction of the contracting state which is the place of habitual residence of the child the determination of the rights of custody and access. Dalton & Dalton [2017] FamCAFC 78; (2017) FLC 93-773 - provides that it is well settled that the jurisdiction to restrain a solicitor from acting for a client is exceptional and to

Kennon v Kennon(1997) FLC 92-757; [1997] FamCA 27 - provided that absent statutory instruction, there is no warrant in s 75(2)(b) Matters to be taken into consideration in relation to spousal maintenance to discount the outcome of the analysis under s 79(4)(a)–(c) Alteration of property interests under the Act. Benson & Drury (2020) FLC 93-998; [2020] FamCAFC 303 - cautioned against the use of the short-hand descriptor of a “Kennon claim” and the reference to the issue as a “Kennon adjustment” given that those epithets might invite the treatment of the issue as an isolated claim for an additional share of the available property.  

Jess & Jess[2021] FamCAFC 159 - provided that leave to appeal is required from a dismissal of a disqualification application.    AGF and LLS (Apprehension of bias) (2005) FLC 93-210; [2005] FamCA 13 - where no argument was provided by counsel or sought by this Court, noting that the prevailing view at the time was that leave to appeal was not required.  Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34 - provides the recognised test for leave to appeal to be granted is whether the decision of the Magistrate is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered, and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision was wrong.

Kasun & Kasun (No.2) [2021] FCCA 513 (19 February 2021) - where the Court made a lump sum finding because given the husband’s conduct in this case, the court has no doubt that if there is any need to go to a costs assessment, he will continue to battle this, that he will waste the wife’s time and money, and he will waste the Court’s time. 

Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520; (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 - where Brown J indicated that a meaningful parental relationship is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child concerned.  

Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520; (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 - where Brown J indicated that a meaningful parental relationship is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child concerned.  

Heath & Hemming (No. 2) [2011] FamCA 749 - where the Honourable Justice Kent opined that the Full Court in Sigley approved the interpretation that a “meaningful relationship” is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child.  McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 - dealt with the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship. Sigley v Evor [2011] FamCAFC 22; (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 - concluded that the preferred interpretation of “benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship” in s 60CC(2)(a) is that the Court should consider and weigh the evidence at the date of the hearing and determine how, if it is in a child’s best interests, Orders can be framed to

Burge & Burge [2015] FamCA 178 - where his Honour noted that “[t]he central focus of the property proceedings, in circumstances where there was little other in the way of capital held by the parties or either of them in terms of interests in property, was the husband’s receipt of an invalidity benefit by virtue of his former role with the Public Service”.Campbell v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (2016) FLC 93-724 - Logan J in the Federal Court of Australia was dealing with an invalidity pension benefit paid pursuant to Military Superannuation Benefits Scheme. Williams v Williams [1985] HCA 52; (1985) 61 ALR 215 - where there can be no doubt that payments received by way of lump sum a