In Sauter & Holt (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 153 (Carew J, 12 March 2026), the Court delivered a highly instructive property decision where a husband transferred control of multiple businesses to a third party lender after separation, purportedly to satisfy loans. The Court set aside the share transfers under s 106B, ordered the sale of the businesses and multiple properties, repaid the third party’s loans with interest only up to the transfer date, and divided the net property 65/35 in the wife’s favour, including a significant uplift due to family violence impacts and future factors. The judgment is also notable for its extraordinary referrals: documents were directed to the Attorney-Gene

🚨 Major wake-up call for AI users 🚨A federal court has ruled in United States v. Heppner (Feb 2026): Your chats with public generative AI (ChatGPT, etc.) are NOT protected by attorney-client privilege.Why? You're sharing with a third party → no confidentiality. AI is not your lawyer. The reasoning is straightforward. Privilege depends on confidentiality, and using a public Al tool involves sharing information with a third party.👀🤔This position is consistent with the Australian position, that AI-Chats are even potentially breaching s 114Q of the Family Law Act (Cth) which is a prohibition on publishing Court information.In a recent Australian Case (unpublished) a Judge held :"The conduct of t

In Koroma & Ishak [2026] FedCFamC1A 18 (Aldridge, Jarrett & Schonell JJ, 4 March 2026), the Full Court dismissed a property appeal that tried to weaponise Shinohara & Shinohara to undo an orthodox “add-back” approach taken under the pre–Family Law Amendment Act 2024 regime. The decision is significant as precedent because it draws a clear transitional line: Shinohara’s post-amendment s 79 reasoning about notional property has no application to cases governed by the earlier legislative framework, and the long-standing add-back authorities remain binding unless and until properly overruled. The Court also gave a practical evidentiary warning: post-separation ATO liabilities won’t b

In Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126 (Williams, Altobelli & Campton JJ, 23 July 2025), the Appellate Division delivered a decision that is precedent-setting for Australian family law property work after the 10 June 2025 amendments to s 79. The Court held that so-called “add backs” / “notional property” that no longer exists cannot be listed as property in the s 79 balance sheet, because s 79(3)(a)(i) now requires the Court to identify only existing legal and equitable interests at the date of assessment. Instead, the historic “add-back categories” (legal fees, premature distribution, wastage) must be dealt with within s 79(4) contributions and/or s 79(5) current/future circ

In Hong & Lai [2026] FedCFamC1A 28 (Riethmuller J, 4 March 2026), the Appellate Division dealt with a practical barrier that routinely kills appeals before they start: the cost of transcripts. Although r 13.19(4) ordinarily requires an appellant to file and serve the transcript, the Court held this was one of the exceptional cases where it was in the interests of justice for the Court itself to obtain the missing day’s transcript and provide it to both parties—relieving the self-represented appellant from an expense of over $2,300 for a single day.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The appellant brought a de facto property application. The final hearing ran over two days (25 September 2025 and 4 D

In Kelly & Huber (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 30, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) overturned a final parenting order that restrained both parents from using any surname other than the father’s for the children—and specifically restrained use of the hyphenated surname “Kelly-Huber”. Aldridge J found the primary judge’s reasoning relied on findings with no evidentiary basis, failed to focus on the children’s best interests, and did not properly consider whether the hyphenated surname met the children’s welfare needs. The Court admitted further evidence and re-exercised the discretion, ordering the children be known as “Kelly-Huber”. 🧩 Fact

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