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

Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166 (11 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a father’s appeal from parenting orders made in his absence. He alleged denial of procedural fairness, judicial bias, and reliance on flawed evidence. Notably, the Court also examined his improper use of generative AI in preparing documents that cited fictitious cases. The decision reinforces limits on appeals, the necessity of courtroom discipline, and the dangers of misusing AI in legal proceedings.🔹 Facts and IssuesThe appellant (father) appealed against parenting orders made after

Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166 (11 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionThis case concerned a father’s attempt to appeal parenting consent orders he had previously agreed to, which granted the mother sole parental responsibility and provided for him to spend alternate weekends, school holidays, and special occasions (including Father’s Day) with the child. The father argued he misunderstood the orders, that they were not properly explained, and that he did not receive adequate legal advice. The Court summarily dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that parties are generally bound by their consent in litigation unless jurisdictional error or vitiating factors exist.🔹 Facts and

Shamon & Shamon [2025] FedCFamC1A 150 (8 September 2025)In Shamon & Shamon [2025] FedCFamC1A 150, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a husband’s appeal against property settlement orders that left his former wife with 80% of the matrimonial pool. The case grappled with disclosure failures, premature trust distributions, tax liabilities, and alleged double counting of business profits. Ultimately, the Court upheld the primary judge’s wide discretion, reinforcing principles of justice and equity under s 79 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Facts and IssuesThe parties married in 2004 and separated in 2020.The wife (homemaker, limited income) cared for

Chong & Kerimowa [2025] FedCFamC1A 158 (8 September 2025)This appeal concerned final parenting orders where the children were placed in the father’s care, with the mother’s time restricted to indefinite professional supervision four times a year, after a six-month moratorium. The mother appealed, arguing denial of procedural fairness, incompetence of her former lawyers, and error in imposing indefinite supervision. The Full Court dismissed her appeal, holding that the primary judge acted within discretion and properly prioritised the children’s best interests.🔹 Facts and IssuesParties: Married 2013, separated 2022; two children (aged 8 and 5).Mother’s allegations: Father allegedly commit

Tsvetkova & Peeters [2025] FedCFamC1A 157 (5 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionThis case concerns an appeal by Ms Tsvetkova against property settlement orders made in favour of her former husband, Mr Peeters. Dissatisfied with the trial outcome, she alleged errors of fact and law, including failure to consider financial misconduct, economic abuse, and undisclosed assets. She also sought to introduce new evidence on appeal. The appellate Court, however, dismissed both her application to adduce new evidence and her substantive appeal.🔹 Facts and IssuesThe parties married in 2016, separated in 2020, and had one child.They began with modest savings (~AUD $44,000), held in a joint account but late

Kapoor & Kapoor [2025] FedCFamC1A 156 (5 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionThis case examines an application for leave to appeal against a judge’s refusal to recuse himself on the basis of ostensible or apprehended bias in ongoing parenting proceedings. The mother, Ms Sabia, alleged that the primary judge’s engagement with the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and reliance on a single expert’s recommendations gave rise to a perception of bias. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), however, rejected this claim.🔹 Facts and IssuesThe parties married in 2018 and had a child in 2020.Following separation in 2022, parenting orders were made for the child to spend increasi