In Meint & Lyall [2026] FedCFamC1A 24 (Campton J, 24 February 2026), the Division 1 Appellate Court considered an appeal from final s 79 property orders. Most of the wife’s appeal failed—especially her factual attack on the trial judge declining to ascribe value to the husband’s minority interest in a closely-held corporation bound by tight shareholder restrictions. But the appeal succeeded on a critical point: the primary judge wrongly treated the husband’s self-managed superannuation fund interest as having no positive value after conflating the financial statements of different companies at different times. The appeal was therefore allowed in part, with a limited remitter to update th

In Blanc & Sarno [2026] FedCFamC1A 22 (Austin J, 18 February 2026), the Division 1 Appellate Court dismissed a father’s appeal from final parenting orders that required his time with the child to remain professionally supervised on an ongoing basis. The appeal failed across the board: the Court rejected the “my trial counsel was incompetent” miscarriage argument, upheld the primary judge’s unacceptable risk assessment, and confirmed that the additional restraints (communication limits, gift limits, school attendance limits) had an evidentiary basis and were not punitive.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The child (born 2020) has always lived with the mother since the parties separated in January

In Flynn & Vincent [2026] FedCFamC1A 21, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) (Riethmuller J, 18 February 2026) allowed a parenting appeal and set aside interim/recovery-style orders that had required a 14-year-old to be returned to his father. The appeal succeeded principally because apprehended bias was established: before hearing full argument, the primary judge made statements that conveyed the outcome was already decided. The appeal also clarified that 15 months of no contact / changed residence can amount to a “significant change in circumstances” for the purpose of s 65DAAA, and that it was legally unreasonable to summarily order a

In Pryor & Pryor (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 77, Austin J (FCFCOA Division 1) determined a defended Pt VIII property dispute after the post-10 June 2025 amendments. The husband’s serious disclosure failures (personal income and corporate finances not independently verifiable) and findings of coercive and controlling family violence (notably financial control and post-separation conduct) materially shifted both the contributions assessment and the s 79(5) adjustment, producing a final entitlement of 77.5% to the wife.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The parties married in 2005 and finally separated in mid-2022. The wife commenced proceedings in March 2023. She received interim distributions totallin

In Pryor & Pryor (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 77, Austin J (FCFCOA Division 1) determined a defended Pt VIII property dispute after the post-10 June 2025 amendments. The husband’s serious disclosure failures (personal income and corporate finances not independently verifiable) and findings of coercive and controlling family violence (notably financial control and post-separation conduct) materially shifted both the contributions assessment and the s 79(5) adjustment, producing a final entitlement of 77.5% to the wife.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The parties married in 2005 and finally separated in mid-2022. The wife commenced proceedings in March 2023. She received interim distributions totallin

Belligerence Has a Price: 73/27 Split After Post-Separation Violence, Non-Disclosure, and WastageIn Gronow & Gronow [2026] FedCFamC2F 107 (Beckhouse J, 9 February 2026), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) made final s 79 property orders following a 16-year marriage with four children. The decision is a sharp illustration of how post-separation family violence, failure of full and frank disclosure, and asset wastage / non-compliance can materially shift outcomes—here culminating in a 73%/27% overall division (including superannuation) in the wife’s favour, plus a companion animal order.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The parties separated on 24 July 2023 after a long

In McNeil & Rydell [2026] FedCFamC2F 149 (Dickson J, 3 February 2026), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dealt with a Compliance and Readiness Hearing in parenting proceedings where the father did not appear, his solicitors had no meaningful instructions for months, and a junior solicitor appeared despite being on a restricted practising certificate and not being on the legal aid panel. The Court ordered the father’s solicitors (C Law Firm) to pay fixed “costs thrown away” to the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), and to file a Notice of Ceasing to Act.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The proceedings concerned competing final parenting applications a

In Tedesco & Tedesco (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2F 82 (Champion J, 2 February 2026), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) determined a contested s 79 property settlement after a long (30-year) marriage. Key battlegrounds included (1) a sharp dispute over single expert valuation of the former matrimonial home, (2) allegations of non-disclosure and an alleged “financial resource” connected to the husband’s deceased brother’s estate, and (3) whether family violence materially affected the wife’s contributions. The Court accepted the later single expert valuation, rejected the “estate” non-disclosure case, found sustained family violence that made the wife’s contribution

In Good & Good [2025] FedCFamC1F 930, Strum J dealt with an awkward (but increasingly common) post-FCFCOA Act problem: two non-party respondents sought review of a Division 2 Senior Judicial Registrar’s decision, but the matter had been transferred into Division 1—creating a jurisdictional “dead end”. His Honour held a Division 1 judge lacked jurisdiction to determine a review of a registrar decision made under Division 2 powers, and therefore requested the Chief Justice transfer the proceedings back to Division 2 so the review applications could actually be heard. ([10], [19]–[21])🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The wife commenced property settlement and spousal maintenance proceedings in Divi

In Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 (Carew J, 17 December 2025), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) determined final parenting arrangements on a rehearing after a successful appeal. It was common ground that it was not in the children’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents, so the case turned into a stark “which home is safest” decision. The Court ordered the children live with the father, with the mother to have no time and no communication (absent written agreement), aside from limited gifts/cards and information-sharing. ([23], [334], [352]–[353])🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The parties have two young children. The reasons d

In Arata & Rex (No 9) [2025] FedCFamC1F 920, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) refused the wife’s attempt to stay enforcement of final property orders while she pursued a s 79A application (and pointed to an ASIC referral). The Court treated the stay bid as another effort to delay the “fruits of litigation” where the wife’s “new” material was largely old ground, her prospects under s 79A were poor, and sale of the home was the predictable consequence of her non-payment under the final orders.Facts:Final parenting and property orders were made on 1 November 2024 (“2024 Final Orders”). The property orders required the wife to pay the husband $1,043,248 within 3

When “Pulling a Sickie” Backfires: $6,555 Costs — and Your Appeal on the LineIn Sum & Lam (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 16, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) refused a self-represented appellant’s second attempt to adjourn an appeal hearing—after medical letters claimed she lacked capacity, but her conduct in the appeal showed the opposite. The day ended with the appeal briefly adjourned only for procedural fairness, a clear warning that the appeal may proceed without her next time, and a fixed “costs thrown away” order of $6,555 payable within 28 days.Facts:The appellant appealed property orders made under Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 197