IntroductionThe case of Daily & Daily (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 889 underscores the significant financial and emotional toll of prolonged family law litigation. The judgment, delivered by Berman J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, addresses the issue of legal costs following a contentious dispute over property settlement and the enforceability of a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA). This decision ultimately determines the extent to which one party should bear the legal costs of the other, considering financial hardship, litigation conduct, and prior settlement offers.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, Ms. Daily (applicant) and Mr. Daily (respondent), began cohabiting i

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently ruled in Ongaro & Abadzhiev (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 878, a case concerning legal costs following a contentious property settlement. The case revolved around Mr. Ongaro’s application seeking costs from Ms. Abadzhiev, arguing that she unreasonably rejected a settlement offer. Justice Berman’s judgment examined whether an order for costs was justified under section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ultimately ruling that no order for costs should be made, leaving both parties responsible for their own legal expenses.Facts and IssuesFacts:The case followed property settlement proceedings concluded in Ongaro & Aba

IntroductionThe case Donovan & Bath [2024] FedCFamC1F 867 highlights the legal complexities of enforcing foreign divorce agreements in Australia. Despite agreeing to transfer property to his ex-wife, the husband repeatedly failed to do so, prompting the wife to seek judicial intervention. The court had to determine whether it had the authority to enforce a foreign court's decision and, ultimately, whether it could compel compliance through specific orders.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, originally from Country D, married in 1996 and divorced in late 2018.Their divorce agreement, filed with the Marriage Registry in Country D, stipulated that the husband must transfer an unencumbered pr

IntroductionThe case of Henschel & Sartre (No 6) [2024] highlights the complexities of family law property disputes and the need for injunctive relief to regulate access to shared assets. The decision deals with an application by the wife, Ms. Henschel, seeking to temporarily modify a prior injunctive order that allowed the husband, Mr. Sartre, limited access to a contentious property. The case is a significant example of how courts attempt to balance competing property interests while considering imminent proceedings on final property settlement.Facts and IssuesFactsThe wife, Ms. Henschel, filed an urgent application on 9 December 2024, seeking to modify an existing order preventing the

IntroductionThe case of Fermikis & Fermikis [2024] FedCFamC1F 879 underscores the importance of complying with final parenting orders in Australian family law. Justice Carter ruled that the mother, Ms. Fermikis, had contravened parenting orders on multiple occasions by failing to facilitate time between the children and their father, Mr. Fermikis. Despite already being on a bond from previous breaches, the mother’s continued non-compliance led to serious legal consequences. This case serves as a stark reminder that family law orders must be followed, and failure to do so can have severe repercussions, including potential imprisonment.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties separated in 2018 an

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently made a significant ruling in Engberg [2024] FedCFamC1F 871, granting full parental responsibility to maternal grandparents following the tragic passing of the child's mother. This case underscores the importance of stability and the child’s best interests in family law matters. The court’s decision ensures the five-year-old child, X, receives continued care, access to education, and necessary healthcare without delay.Facts and IssuesFacts:The child, X, was born in 2019 via sperm donation. The identity of the biological father is unknown.X’s mother, Ms. D, tragically passed away in an accident in 2024.Since birth, X had li

IntroductionThe case of Fermikis & Fermikis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 58 highlights the consequences of repeated breaches of parenting orders in Australian family law. Justice Carter addressed multiple contraventions by the mother, who had previously been sanctioned for similar violations. The court had to determine appropriate penalties, balancing the need for compliance with parenting orders against the potential impact on the children. The ruling underscores the importance of obeying family court orders and the judiciary’s preference for corrective rather than punitive measures.Facts and IssuesFactsThe mother had previously breached parenting orders, leading to the imposition of bonds.

Introduction:The case of Woodruff & Cabler [2024] FedCFamC1F 724 demonstrates the delicate balance the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia seeks to maintain between safeguarding children and preserving parent-child relationships. The matter, concerning interim parenting arrangements, highlights the Court’s approach to allegations of misconduct and its commitment to protecting the best interests of children amidst unresolved accusations and contested facts.Facts and Issues:Facts:The case concerns X, aged 13, and Y, aged 10, whose parents are separated.The father has been the primary carer since separation.Allegations against the father include sexually touching X’s close friend,

IntroductionIn a landmark family law judgment, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with the complex intersection of mental health challenges, parenting capacity, and the best interests of children. The case of Oyama v Oyama addressed pivotal issues around parental decision-making, supervised contact, and safeguards for children when one parent suffers from significant mental health conditions. This analysis explores the judgment's intricate legal reasoning, the application of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and the broader lessons it imparts for family law disputes involving mental health considerations.Facts and IssuesFacts: The parents, Mr. and Ms. Oyama, have two chi

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently addressed complex issues of recusal, property distribution, and procedural fairness in Dekker & Rapallino (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 726. Justice Hartnett navigated a litigant's claims of bias, procedural grievances, and disputed property orders, underscoring principles of judicial impartiality and the discretionary nature of stays and cost awards. The judgment highlights the careful consideration required in balancing equity, procedural justice, and parties’ conduct in family law matters.Facts and IssuesFacts:The wife sought a stay of property orders issued on July 11, 2024, while appealing their totality.The wife appl

Introductory Paragraph:The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in Zeelan & Abney [2024] FedCFamC1F 727 tackled a challenging parenting dispute between estranged parents navigating high-conflict dynamics. Central to the case was determining the best arrangements for their child, X, amidst competing proposals for parenting schedules, overseas travel permissions, and injunctions addressing parental behavior. Justice Christie’s detailed reasoning illustrates the Court's application of legal principles to balance parental rights while safeguarding the child’s welfare.Facts and Issues:Facts:The parents, Mr. Zeelan and Ms. Abney, have a history of conflict and reside in different citi

Introductory ParagraphIn Luna & Luna (No 8) [2024] FedCFamC1F 742, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia revisited the principle of costs in family law proceedings. The case, presided over by Hogan J, grappled with the applicant's unsuccessful bid to have her former husband’s solicitors (the third respondent) pay her costs, despite her earlier failure to secure such an order. The court ultimately reinforced the statutory presumption against costs orders, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion and equity under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant, Ms. Luna, sought an order for costs against her ex-husband’s solicitors, the third responde