Weir & Weir [1992] FamCA 69; (1993) FLC 92-338 - used the three-leaf clover or the Holy Trinity as a basis of consequences in property litigation where there is nondisclosure. Digest Danyon & Danyon [2021] FCCA 1400 (3 May 2021) - provides that under the first limb of the Holy Trinity, the Court shall favor the party who complies with the duty of financial disclosure, in this case, the Wife.  The second limb draws the inference that some aspects of what the Husband has not disclosed does not suit the case.  The third limb would not be applicable in this case because it applies when the parties have told the Court that they have disclosed everything. 

Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 60 ALR 68; [1985] HCA 28 - relied upon in the assertion that the transcript was not accurate was not made to the primary judge.  Had it been made, evidence could have been called on the issue and the audio obtained.  It is therefore now too late to raise this allegation

Salah & Salah (2016) FLC 93-713; [2016] FamCAFC 100 - provides that the denial of serious allegations of risk to children does not mean that in interim proceedings, a court can thereafter ignore them.TF & JF [2005] FamCA 394 -  where Her Honour having found that the evidence in the case “objectively viewed reveals the potential for an unacceptable risk to the children if contact with the father is not supervised...”, then referred to the difficulty associated with long term supervised contact and said “the necessity for contact to be supervised apparently indefinitely leads to the need to finely balance what is in the children’s best interests”. George & Nichols [2016] FamCA 519 

Thorne & Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 - where it was held that conclusion of unconscionable conduct requires the innocent party to be subject to a special disadvantage "which seriously affects the ability of the innocent party to make a judgment as to [the innocent party's] own best interests."

Scott & 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.

Petrova & 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.

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.