In Conner & Conner (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 223, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia reaffirmed a fundamental principle of appellate law — not every order is appealable. The mother’s attempt to appeal procedural directions relating to a psychiatric assessment was dismissed as incompetent because the orders did not determine any substantive rights. The Court’s reasoning underscores the distinction between procedural and final orders and the importance of understanding when an appeal properly lies.Facts and IssuesThe parties married in 2019 and have one child (born 2021).Following separation in 2022, multiple interim parenting orders were made allowing the c

In Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia took an unprecedented stance on the misuse of Artificial Intelligence in family law litigation. The case serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners about the unverified use of generative AI in preparing submissions. When counsel submitted documents containing fake authorities and inaccurate case citations, the Full Court not only ordered costs against the appellant but also referred the lawyers involved to their respective professional conduct regulators. This decision sets a critical precedent on technological responsibility and professional ethics in modern advocacy.Facts and Issue

In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478, Judge Suthers delivered a decisive ruling in a highly contentious second tranche of parenting proceedings. The mother, who initiated the case, alleged the father had sexually abused their six-year-old son. However, after multiple investigations by police and child protection authorities found no evidence, the Court determined that the mother’s persistent and unsubstantiated allegations caused emotional harm to the child. In a rare but clear outcome, the Court found the mother — not the father — posed an unacceptable risk to the child’s psychological wellbeing, granting the father sole parental responsibility and ordering that the child live wi

In Willis & Mulder [2025] FedCFamC1A 217, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) overturned a property settlement after the wife uncovered explosive new evidence — her husband, who claimed to be a pensioner with no income, had secretly declared a $176,000 annual salary to a lender just months later. The appellate court found that while the trial judge made no legal errors based on the original evidence, the husband’s post-trial loan documents “collided violently” with his sworn testimony. This new evidence fatally undermined the trial findings under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), leading the Court to set aside the orders and

In Barnabas & Phineus [2025] FedCFamC1A 215, Justice Campton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) dealt with a father’s appeal against supervised contact orders. The father alleged his trial counsel’s incompetence led to an unfair trial and that the primary judge gave insufficient weight to his medical evidence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that not every alleged forensic mistake by counsel amounts to a miscarriage of justice, and that appellate intervention is reserved for errors that materially affect the result. The judgment underscores the high threshold for appeals based on alleged incompetence of counsel and

In Mayfield & Mayfield [2025] FedCFamC2F 1227, Judge Turnbull of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2, Hobart) reaffirmed the strict operation of section 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — the rule that parties must first attempt Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) or obtain an appropriate section 60I certificate before filing parenting proceedings. The applicant mother argued her case should proceed because the father’s refusal to attend mediation made FDR impossible. However, the Court held that even in such situations, the proper process is to obtain a practitioner’s certificate reflecting that refusal — not to bypass the system entirely. The decision reinforces that proce

In Villa & Villa [2025] FedCFamC1A 214, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate) dismissed the husband’s urgent application to expedite an appeal concerning his failed bid to force his former wife to swear an affidavit about her alleged access to his privileged communications. The husband claimed his legal professional privilege had been breached, fearing the wife might use undisclosed documents in the ongoing financial proceedings. Justice Austin found there was no factual basis for the husband’s suspicions, no urgent need for appeal, and that the issue could be addressed in the ordinary course of the part-heard trial or in a future app

In Nootkamp & Brulja (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1A 210, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a husband’s fourth attempt to overturn enforcement orders made to implement final property settlement orders from 2024. The self-represented appellant alleged judicial bias, procedural unfairness, and discretionary error, but the Full Court (Austin, Sutherland & Riethmuller JJ) found that he was simply re-litigating issues already determined and had been given ample opportunity to comply with the original orders. The Court reinforced the narrow grounds for alleging bias and the high threshold for obtaining leave to appeal interlocutory property

In Van Wyk & Van Wyk [2025] FedCFamC1A 209, the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) grappled with one of family law’s hardest dilemmas — how to protect children from the corrosive effects of chronic parental conflict while respecting the importance of both parents in their lives. The father’s appeal challenged final parenting orders that allocated the mother sole parental responsibility for most decisions, while granting him limited authority over the younger child’s psychological and educational care. Deputy Chief Justice McClelland dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that judicial discretion will rarely be disturbed where the trial judge has reasonably balanced risk, evidence,

In Ramirus & Hendrika [2025] FedCFamC1A 204, Justice Strum of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a strong rebuke to judicial conduct that compromised procedural fairness. The case involved a self-represented father who was excluded from the courtroom while the trial judge held private discussions with the mother’s counsel and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) — conversations that included adverse commentary about the father’s mental health and personality. The Full Court ruled this was a clear denial of procedural fairness, rendering the trial invalid. The parenting orders preventing the father from seeing his children were set aside and the matter remitted

In Partington & Partington [2025] FedCFamC1A 208, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a self-represented father’s bid to have the Court fund transcripts for his appeal — an appeal that related to an event already past. The father argued that earlier transcripts were essential to prove judicial bias, including claims that the trial judge mocked his faith, belittled his ADHD, and “tag-teamed” with opposing counsel. The Court, however, found no utility in the request, reiterating that litigants must bear the cost of their own appeals, and that transcripts are only funded in exceptional circumstances.🧾 Facts and IssuesOn 27 August 2025

In Warszawski & Warszawski (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 203, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) handed down a clear message about the consequences of unreasonable litigation conduct and rejected settlement offers. The Court awarded costs against the wife after finding she was wholly unsuccessful on her cross-appeal and had refused settlement offers that would have left her financially better off. The judgment underscores the discretionary yet principled approach to costs in family law appeals, particularly under s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which permits cost orders when “justifying circumstances” exist.🧾 Facts and IssuesThe husban