📘 Introduction:In the landmark family law case of Knight & Knight [2022] FedCFamC1F 797, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia took a proactive stance to protect the integrity of evidence and the emotional safety of a party in family law proceedings. The case involved serious allegations of family violence, and the Court grappled with ensuring procedural fairness while safeguarding vulnerable parties. Judge Schonell’s decision to allow cross-examination via video link underlines the Court’s commitment to child-focused and trauma-informed justice.🧾 Facts and Issues:Facts:The proceedings concern parenting arrangements for two children, referred to as X and Y.The applicant (Ms B

IntroductionIn Samaras & Allen [2021] FedCFamC1F 20, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with a high-stakes decision involving a request by a mother to stay interim parenting orders pending appeal. At the heart of this matter was the question of whether the child’s relationship with her father and potential risks to her welfare justified overriding the court’s earlier ruling. This case exemplifies how legal principles governing interim family law appeals intersect with the paramount consideration—the best interests of the child.Facts and IssuesFactsThe parties, Ms Allen (mother) and Mr Samaras (father), have a daughter born in 2016.The child’s living arrangements

📘 Introduction:The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in Chrystie & Dellas [2024] FedCFamC1F 340 marks the end of a grueling decade-long parenting litigation. The case highlights the challenges of protracted family law disputes, the court's prioritization of children's welfare, and the legal consequences of non-engagement in litigation. Delivered by Altobelli J, the ruling is a testament to the judiciary's capacity to bring closure when proceedings stagnate, with key reliance on the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).📂 Facts and Issues:✅ Facts:The parties have three children aged 12 to 16 who have lived primarily with the mother since at least 2017.Despite multiple interim parenting or

📝 IntroductionIn Salmani & Hasan [2021] FedCFamC1F 29, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced a complex dilemma involving family law, public interest immunity, and the right to procedural fairness. At the heart of the matter was a mother's attempt to access confidential court reasoning to support her potential appeal, balanced against the imperative to protect sensitive information deemed critical by the NSW Crime Commission. This case illuminates how the court carefully calibrates competing interests—open justice and public safety.📚 Facts and IssuesFacts:The matter stems from parenting proceedings between Ms. Salmani (the mother) and Mr. Hasan (the father).In a prior ju

🧾 IntroductionIn Humphrey & Humphrey (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 73, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with a deeply contentious parenting dispute. A mother alleged ten contraventions by the father for failing to comply with parenting orders regarding their son. At the heart of the case was the son’s resistance to spending time with his mother, prompting a judicial balancing act between enforcing orders and recognising practical impossibilities. Ultimately, Justice Howard dismissed the mother’s application, finding the father had made reasonable attempts to comply under challenging circumstances.🧾 Facts and Issues🔹 Facts:The parties have two children: X (born 2007)

🧭 IntroductionIn Quinn & Lawson (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 112, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered a decisive judgment bringing an end to nearly a decade-long property dispute. This family law matter centered on Ms Quinn’s application for property adjustment orders following the breakdown of a de facto relationship with Mr Lawson. Despite repeated opportunities and judicial leniency, Ms Quinn's persistent failure to comply with court directions and provide admissible evidence led to the ultimate dismissal of her application.📌 Facts and IssuesFacts:Ms Quinn and Mr Lawson were in a de facto relationship for ~7 years with no children.Ms Quinn initiated proceedings in

IntroductionIn Moss & Moss [2025] FedCFamC1F 135, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed two critical procedural applications brought by the mother in a protracted parenting dispute. Justice Brasch delivered a detailed ex tempore judgment dismissing both the mother’s application to adjourn the trial due to her counsel’s unavailability and a request for government intervention under s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). At the heart of the ruling was a reaffirmation of the principle that the best interests of the children trump procedural preferences or party conveniences.Facts and IssuesFactsThe parties, married in 2012 and separated in 2019, are embroiled in a par

IntroductionIn Sandos & Sandos [2025] FedCFamC1F 131, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) ruled on an application for interim spousal maintenance. The judgment, delivered by Campton J, reflects the principles underlying sections 72 and 74 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It deals with one party’s entitlement to maintenance and the obligations of the financially stronger party, even in the face of incomplete financial disclosure. The ruling is a salient example of how the law balances fairness, needs, and capacity within the context of marital breakdown and pending property disputes.Facts and IssuesFacts:The wife (68) and husband (67) commenced cohabitation in

🧑‍⚖️ IntroductionIn the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia case Shvets & Shvets [2025] FedCFamC1F 120, the Court grappled with the balance between a litigant’s right to subpoena documents and the burden such a subpoena can place on non-parties. The husband in a property dispute issued a broad and burdensome subpoena to E Pty Ltd—an entity formerly linked to his wife and her father—demanding production of over 765,000 emails. The Court ultimately deemed the request oppressive and awarded costs to the third party. This case serves as a significant reminder of the proportionality principle in legal discovery.📋 Facts and IssuesFacts:The case involves a property settlement dispute

🏛️ IntroductionIn Westwood & Westwood [2025] FedCFamC1F 94, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with a high-stakes property settlement involving a multimillion-dollar rural estate, decades-long contributions, and the legal intricacies of superannuation and family trusts. This case not only deals with the valuation and division of assets after a long marriage but also tests the Court’s balancing of historic contributions against current financial realities and emotional stakes.📋 Facts and Legal IssuesFacts:Mr. Westwood brought significant farming properties into the marriage, valued retrospectively at over $1.5 million.The parties cohabited from 1990 and separated a

📝 IntroductionIn the family law dispute Naumov & Geissler [2025] FedCFamC1F 132, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered dueling subpoenas—one from a de facto husband seeking privileged legal advice, and others from the de facto wife directed at secured creditors of her former partner’s business group. This judgment by Justice Campton not only reinforces core principles surrounding legal professional privilege but also illustrates the low but significant threshold for subpoena relevance in property disputes.📌 Facts and IssuesFactsThe de facto couple, Ms Naumov and Mr Geissler, cohabited from 2007 until a final separation in December 2021. They have two children.A pro

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in Neame & Neame (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 127 dealt with an urgent and contentious interim application within protracted family law proceedings. The wife, removed as the sole director of a family business by the husband, sought reinstatement amidst claims of financial mismanagement and control over shared assets. The judgment navigated family law, corporate governance, and fiduciary obligations within the backdrop of failing finances and pending property settlement.Facts and IssuesFactsNeame Pty Ltd was incorporated in 2011 as the corporate trustee of the Neame Family Trust.D Pty Ltd (a company operating under a franchise call