🧑‍⚖️ 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

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia's decision in Perigord & Cosic [2025] FedCFamC1F 138 is a significant reminder of how the legal system prioritizes the safety and emotional well-being of children and their caregivers in family law parenting matters. This case tackled complex issues of family violence, mental health, substance abuse, and parental capacity, ultimately culminating in a judgment that sharply limited a father’s contact with his children through strict supervision orders.📋 Facts and Legal IssuesKey FactsThe parties, Ms Perigord (mother) and Mr Cosic (father), have two young children aged five and three.The parties agreed that the children should live with the

📝 IntroductionIn Andalis & Andalis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 137, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with the persistent refusal of a 14-year-old child, Y, to return to her mother's care following court-ordered relocation. Originally ordered to live with her mother and siblings, Y’s strong and consistent desire to live with her father — and her eventual physical refusal to return — triggered reconsideration of the final orders. This case illustrates the evolving balance between parental rights, the integrity of court orders, and a mature child’s autonomy and psychological welfare.📚 Facts and IssuesFacts:The initial 2023 orders mandated that all four children live w

In Kesselman & Brimble [2025], the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) tackled a high-conflict parenting dispute involving children with significant behavioural needs and a mother living with PTSD. At the core of the dispute was the issue of parental responsibility: should it be shared, or should the mother—who alleged coercive and violent behaviour from the father—have sole authority over major decisions? Justice Boyle’s detailed judgment offers a nuanced and trauma-informed approach to family violence, shared parenting, and the realities of co-parenting in complex circumstances.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:The parties have two children: X (9) and Y (7), both diagno

In Re: Morgan, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was asked to determine whether a 16-year-old transgender girl, Morgan, was Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 gender-affirming hormone therapy, despite her father's religious objections. The judgment of Anderson J addresses pressing issues at the intersection of family law, gender identity, medical ethics, and children's rights. The Court’s ruling underscores the primacy of a child’s best interests and autonomy in such deeply personal decisions.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:Morgan, born in 2008, identifies as female and has been receiving Stage 1 treatment (puberty blockers) since 2019.The mother sought orders confirming Morgan's capacity

📘 Introduction:In Abramsson & Abramsson (No 3), the Family Court was confronted with a procedural challenge following final parenting orders. The mother, having launched an appeal against those orders, filed a further application seeking not only a stay but also an interim reversal of the children’s living arrangements. Justice Carew’s brief but decisive judgment focused squarely on the question of jurisdiction, highlighting the procedural missteps litigants must avoid post-final orders.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:Final parenting orders were made on 6 December 2024, granting the father sole parental responsibility and residence of the children.The mother appealed the decision and sought a

Introduction:The case of Morcos & Lindon (No 3) demonstrates the complexities that arise when family law intersects with estate disputes, trust structures, and alleged fraud. Justice Bennett was tasked with adjudicating post-final-order applications, including requests for joinder, substitution, a stay pending appeal, and clarifications under the slip rule. The judgment sheds light on the fine line between legitimate litigation steps and attempts to re-litigate substantive issues after finality.Facts and Issues:Facts:Mr. Morcos (husband) and Ms. Lindon (wife) were parties in property settlement proceedings.The key property at D Street, Suburb E, was legally in the name of the husband’s l

IntroductionThe case of Donovan & Bath [2024] FedCFamC1F 867 highlights the legal complexities that arise when enforcing foreign divorce agreements in Australia. Despite the husband's initial consent to transfer a property to the wife as part of an overseas divorce agreement, he repeatedly failed to comply. This case examines how the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia exercised its authority under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to enforce foreign obligations and ensure compliance with property orders.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, both originally from Country D, married in 1996 and divorced in late 2018.During their marriage, they acquired property in Country D, the United

IntroductionThe case of Vernick & Bayley [2024] FedCFamC1F 888 highlights the enforcement of final property orders in family law, particularly concerning the sale of a matrimonial home. The dispute centers on whether the husband, Mr. Vernick, contravened court orders by delaying the auction of the former marital home, despite a final order requiring its sale. Justice Altobelli was tasked with determining whether the husband's failure to comply constituted an enforceable breach and what remedies were available.Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant (Ms. Bayley) and the respondent (Mr. Vernick) were subject to final property orders made on 10 October 2024.These orders required the sale of the