IntroductionThe case of Nakahara & Nakahara [2024] FedCFamC1F 875 highlights the consequences of unnecessarily prolonging family law proceedings and rejecting reasonable settlement offers. The central issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the husband should bear the wife's legal costs following the final property settlement orders. The Court ultimately ruled against the husband, ordering him to pay the wife’s legal costs on a party-party basis from 4 August 2023, primarily due to his conduct during the proceedings, including his refusal to accept a reasonable settlement offer and his unsuccessful pursuit of an add-back claim.Facts and IssuesFactsThe w

IntroductionThe case Berfield & Berfield (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 881 presents a cautionary tale of how unsuccessful litigation can lead to significant financial consequences. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ruled on a costs dispute following an unsuccessful equitable claim made by the wife against her husband's siblings. The judgment highlights the importance of well-founded claims, judicial discretion in cost orders, and the implications of unsuccessful litigation on parties' financial standing.Facts and IssuesFactsThe applicant, Ms. B Berfield ("the wife"), initiated property proceedings against her former husband, Mr. C Berfield ("the husband"), under Part VIII of t

IntroductionThe case of Fowles & Fowles (No 7) [2024] FedCFamC1F 880 is a significant decision from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), dealing with the enforcement of property orders in family law. This case highlights the challenges in ensuring compliance with court orders and the complexities of jurisdictional authority when enforcement applications are contested. Justice Hartnett’s ruling provides insight into the legal mechanisms available to prevent a party from evading their obligations, particularly when international travel is a concern.Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant wife filed an Enforcement Application on 8 August 2024, seeking to enforce final

IntroductionThe case of Daily & Daily (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 889 underscores the significant financial and emotional toll of prolonged family law litigation. The judgment, delivered by Berman J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, addresses the issue of legal costs following a contentious dispute over property settlement and the enforceability of a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA). This decision ultimately determines the extent to which one party should bear the legal costs of the other, considering financial hardship, litigation conduct, and prior settlement offers.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, Ms. Daily (applicant) and Mr. Daily (respondent), began cohabiting i

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently ruled in Ongaro & Abadzhiev (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 878, a case concerning legal costs following a contentious property settlement. The case revolved around Mr. Ongaro’s application seeking costs from Ms. Abadzhiev, arguing that she unreasonably rejected a settlement offer. Justice Berman’s judgment examined whether an order for costs was justified under section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ultimately ruling that no order for costs should be made, leaving both parties responsible for their own legal expenses.Facts and IssuesFacts:The case followed property settlement proceedings concluded in Ongaro & Aba

IntroductionThe case Donovan & Bath [2024] FedCFamC1F 867 highlights the legal complexities of enforcing foreign divorce agreements in Australia. Despite agreeing to transfer property to his ex-wife, the husband repeatedly failed to do so, prompting the wife to seek judicial intervention. The court had to determine whether it had the authority to enforce a foreign court's decision and, ultimately, whether it could compel compliance through specific orders.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, originally from Country D, married in 1996 and divorced in late 2018.Their divorce agreement, filed with the Marriage Registry in Country D, stipulated that the husband must transfer an unencumbered pr

IntroductionThe case of Henschel & Sartre (No 6) [2024] highlights the complexities of family law property disputes and the need for injunctive relief to regulate access to shared assets. The decision deals with an application by the wife, Ms. Henschel, seeking to temporarily modify a prior injunctive order that allowed the husband, Mr. Sartre, limited access to a contentious property. The case is a significant example of how courts attempt to balance competing property interests while considering imminent proceedings on final property settlement.Facts and IssuesFactsThe wife, Ms. Henschel, filed an urgent application on 9 December 2024, seeking to modify an existing order preventing the

IntroductionThe case of Fermikis & Fermikis [2024] FedCFamC1F 879 underscores the importance of complying with final parenting orders in Australian family law. Justice Carter ruled that the mother, Ms. Fermikis, had contravened parenting orders on multiple occasions by failing to facilitate time between the children and their father, Mr. Fermikis. Despite already being on a bond from previous breaches, the mother’s continued non-compliance led to serious legal consequences. This case serves as a stark reminder that family law orders must be followed, and failure to do so can have severe repercussions, including potential imprisonment.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties separated in 2018 an

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently made a significant ruling in Engberg [2024] FedCFamC1F 871, granting full parental responsibility to maternal grandparents following the tragic passing of the child's mother. This case underscores the importance of stability and the child’s best interests in family law matters. The court’s decision ensures the five-year-old child, X, receives continued care, access to education, and necessary healthcare without delay.Facts and IssuesFacts:The child, X, was born in 2019 via sperm donation. The identity of the biological father is unknown.X’s mother, Ms. D, tragically passed away in an accident in 2024.Since birth, X had li

IntroductionThe case of Zhuo & Ji (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 22 is a landmark family law decision addressing property settlement, corporate insolvency, and the impact of non-disclosure in financial proceedings. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), presided over by Harper J, dealt with an extensive history of asset dissipation, non-compliance with court orders, and financial deception by the husband. The Court ultimately awarded the wife the entire known asset pool, imposed a $5.88 million addback for dissipated assets, and ordered the husband to pay outstanding spousal maintenance. This decision underscores the severe consequences of failing to disclose assets an

IntroductionThe case of Fermikis & Fermikis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 58 highlights the consequences of repeated breaches of parenting orders in Australian family law. Justice Carter addressed multiple contraventions by the mother, who had previously been sanctioned for similar violations. The court had to determine appropriate penalties, balancing the need for compliance with parenting orders against the potential impact on the children. The ruling underscores the importance of obeying family court orders and the judiciary’s preference for corrective rather than punitive measures.Facts and IssuesFactsThe mother had previously breached parenting orders, leading to the imposition of bonds.

Introduction:The case of Woodruff & Cabler [2024] FedCFamC1F 724 demonstrates the delicate balance the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia seeks to maintain between safeguarding children and preserving parent-child relationships. The matter, concerning interim parenting arrangements, highlights the Court’s approach to allegations of misconduct and its commitment to protecting the best interests of children amidst unresolved accusations and contested facts.Facts and Issues:Facts:The case concerns X, aged 13, and Y, aged 10, whose parents are separated.The father has been the primary carer since separation.Allegations against the father include sexually touching X’s close friend,