In Cuyper & Cuyper [2025] FedCFamC1A 176, Justice Riethmuller of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) allowed a wife’s appeal from a Western Australian Magistrates Court decision concerning final property orders. The appeal turned on the denial of procedural fairness — where the husband changed the property division sought on the morning of trial without proper notice — and on significant factual and legal errors in assessing contributions. The Court held that the wife had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to a last-minute shift from a 50/50 to a 60/40 division, and that the trial magistrate erred in both fact and method by assuming equalit

In Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455, Justice Kari of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a comprehensive ruling addressing a father’s barrage of interlocutory applications across parenting, property, and procedural issues. Despite repeated warnings, the father’s conduct — marked by abusive communications, baseless filings, and disregard for orders — culminated in the Court issuing a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), prohibiting him from instituting further proceedings without leave. The decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against litigation misuse and its priority to protect parties and children f

In Artigas & Merino [2025] FedCFamC2F 949, Deputy Chief Judge McClelland presided over a complex property dispute involving a long marriage, competing financial and homemaking contributions, and disputes over addbacks, superannuation, and post-separation gains. The husband, a high-income professional, argued that his superior financial input and post-separation earnings justified a greater share. The wife, the primary homemaker and caregiver, sought 85% of the property pool. The Court balanced the scales—recognising the husband’s financial dominance but offsetting it with the wife’s long-term homemaking and future needs—ultimately declaring an equal division of assets as “just and equita

Kerimowa & Chong (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 395IntroIn the explosive Kerimowa & Chong (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 395 ruling, Justice Anderson of Australia's Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) slammed the door on a mother's frantic bid to pause final parenting orders while she appeals. Despite her pleas, the court put kids' stability front and center, ruling that appeals don't automatically hit the brakes on life-changing decisions. This case drives home a brutal truth: stays are rare "exceptional" favors, not a sure thing in custody wars.Facts and IssuesThe parties are the parents of two children, aged 10 and 8.Following a final trial in April 2025, Justice Anderson made order

Wynn & Danilov [2025] FedCFamC1A 183⚖️ Case Digest1. Background and Core IssueIn Wynn & Danilov, the father, self-represented, appealed several interlocutory rulings made during ongoing family law proceedings.While most of his appeals failed, the Full Court allowed one important ground—concerning the trial judge’s injunctions restraining him from making or republishing public statements, including those derived from his affidavits.The father had posted on social media critical comments about the Court, the judge, and aspects of the litigation. The trial judge responded by issuing injunctions prohibiting him from “publishing or republishing any allegations or information” relating to

In Besim & Zehra [2025] FedCFamC1A 181, Justice Aldridge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) reconsidered how post-separation contributions—particularly savings and inheritance—should be treated in a property division. The husband, self-represented on appeal, successfully argued that the primary judge erred by failing to properly account for his significant financial acquisitions after separation. This case underscores the fine balance between judicial discretion and error correction within the appellate jurisdiction of family law property settlements.Facts and IssuesThe parties’ relationship produced a joint property pool of approximately $2.45 million, the

Malcom & Pereira [2025] FedCFamC1A 177 (26 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Malcom & Pereira [2025] FedCFamC1A 177, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Altobelli & McNab JJ) dismissed a father’s appeal against parenting orders that prevented him from spending any time with or communicating with his two children. The case dealt with complex allegations of family violence, competing credibility claims, and the father’s multiple applications for the trial judge to recuse himself for alleged bias. The appeal is significant for its reaffirmation of high appellate thresholds when challenging discretionary family law decisions, and for cla

Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov [2025] FedCFamC1A 173🔹 IntroductionIn Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov [2025] FedCFamC1A 173, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed an oral application by the father (appellant) to adjourn his appeal hearing, despite both the mother (respondent) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) consenting. The Court held that adjournments must serve the overarching purpose of efficient justice and cannot be granted merely because parties agree. The ruling highlights the Court’s statutory duty to manage caseloads efficiently and reminds litigants that litigation serves the public interest, not just private convenience.🔹 Facts and IssuesBa

⚖️ Spargo & Spargo [2025] FedCFamC1A 174 (25 September 2025)IntroductionIn Spargo & Spargo [2025] FedCFamC1A 174, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Appellate Division) considered whether a trial judge erred in refusing to recuse herself in parenting proceedings. The case centered on whether the judge’s interventions during cross-examination created an appearance of apprehended bias and denial of procedural fairness. Justice Strum allowed the appeal, ruling that the father had been denied the assurance of an impartial tribunal, and ordered a retrial before a different judge.Facts and IssuesThe father (appellant) sought the trial judge’s recusal on grounds of apprehend

⚖️ Sieglinde & Umay [2025] FedCFamC1A 169 (18 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Sieglinde & Umay (No 3), the Full Court considered whether costs should be ordered after the mother withdrew her appeal against final parenting orders that had cut off her relationship with her twin sons. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) sought substantial costs, but the Court emphasised the default principle that each party bears their own costs in family law, and compassionately declined to penalise the mother, despite her wholly unsuccessful appeal.🔹 Facts and IssuesBackground Orders (April 2025):Father given sole parental responsibility.Children to live with father, with no time or

Hogai & Galit (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 170 (18 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Hogai & Galit (No 3), the husband appealed final parenting and property orders that divided assets 55/45 in favour of the wife and gave her primary care of their child. He argued the property orders were unfair, particularly concerning a foreign property and funds lost in a fraudulent scheme. The Full Court dismissed the appeal, emphasising that parties cannot sidestep disclosure obligations, resile from concessions, or rely on dissatisfaction instead of demonstrating legal error.🔹 Facts and IssuesMarriage & Separation: Married 2004, two children (eldest now adult, youngest 13). Separated 2022; child h

Pierce & Pierce (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 162 (12 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Pierce & Pierce (No 2), the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a father’s appeal against interim parenting orders that gave the mother sole parental responsibility, ordered the children to live with her, and restrained the father from contact. The case highlights the paramountcy of children’s safety under Pt VII Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Court’s intolerance for prolix, unsupported appeals.🔹 Facts and IssuesParties & children: Three children aged 5, nearly 4, and 2.Father’s background: History of mental health issues (bipolar and borderline personality di