In Harridan & Harridan [2026] FedCFamC1A 104, the wife won her property appeal because the appeal court found the primary judge used the wrong method when assessing contributions. The trial judge had divided the case into separate contribution categories — initial contributions, contributions during the relationship, inheritance, and post-separation contributions — then effectively gave the wife only a 10% uplift for an inheritance that represented almost 50% of the existing property pool. Schonell J held that this compartmentalised approach was legally erroneous. Once that error was exposed, the appeal court was required to intervene, allow the appeal, and re-exercise discretion. The wi

In Gowden & Taggart [2026] FedCFamC1A 106, Schonell J dismissed the appellant’s Application in an Appeal seeking further expedition and asking the Court to meet the cost of transcript for an appeal against interim parenting orders involving a newborn child born through an altruistic surrogacy arrangement. The Court accepted the appellant had acted promptly and recognised the sensitivity of the matter, but held that the appeal was already listed within a little over two months, which effectively amounted to expedition. The Court also held that a transcript was not required because the interim hearing proceeded on the papers, there was no cross-examination, and the grounds of appeal challe

In Fowles (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 103, the Full Court granted limited leave to appeal where the applicant was subject to a harmful proceedings order and sought to challenge contravention orders that imposed a conditional 12-month term of imprisonment. The central issue was whether the primary judge should have applied the **criminal standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt — rather than the civil standard — balance of probabilities — before making orders that could result in imprisonment. Leave was granted only on that ground. The other proposed grounds were rejected as irrelevant, misconceived, lacking reasonable prospects, or insufficiently particularised.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The ap

In Rocchi & Hadak [2026] FedCFamC1A 100, Williams J dismissed the father’s appeal from final parenting orders that provided for the children to live with the mother, the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility except as to the children’s names, and the father to spend initially supervised time with the children after family therapy, progressing later to unsupervised time. The appeal failed because the father’s grounds and Summary of Argument did not properly identify appealable error. Instead, they were dense, repetitive, overlapping and largely attempted to re-agitate the case he had run unsuccessfully at trial.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties had two children. After separ

In Rocchi & Hadak [2026] FedCFamC1A 100, Williams J dismissed the father’s appeal from final parenting orders that provided for the children to live with the mother, the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility except as to the children’s names, and the father to spend initially supervised time with the children after family therapy, progressing later to unsupervised time. The appeal failed because the father’s grounds and Summary of Argument did not properly identify appealable error. Instead, they were dense, repetitive, overlapping and largely attempted to re-agitate the case he had run unsuccessfully at trial.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties had two children. After separ

In Rockford & Burnell [2026] FedCFamC1A 99, Strum J mostly dismissed the husband’s appeal from an indemnity costs order requiring him to pay the wife’s costs of the financial proceedings. The husband had been ordered to pay $171,900 on an indemnity basis, principally because of his litigation conduct, false evidence, non-disclosure, collateral pressure on the wife and her solicitor, and unreasonable rejection of offers. The appeal succeeded only on a small mathematical correction, reducing the amount to $164,700. Because the husband’s success was minor and the wife conceded the error once identified, he was still ordered to pay the wife’s appeal costs, with the $7,200 overpayment set off

In Poirier & Poirier (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 95, Aldridge J dismissed the husband’s appeal against a $150,000 costs order, rejected the wife’s cross-appeal seeking indemnity costs, but allowed the wife’s cross-appeal in part against enforcement orders requiring her to refinance or sell property. The key split in the case is this: the costs order survived because the primary judge’s broad-brush assessment was logical, fair and reasonable; however, the enforcement order was set aside because fresh evidence showed the husband had been charged with allegedly forging the wife’s signature on Westpac home loan documents, creating a real possibility that the mortgage liability itself may be cha

In Abramsson & Abramsson (No 5) [2026] FedCFamC1A 90, the Full Court dismissed the mother’s appeals against both the final parenting orders and the separate property orders. The parenting appeal challenged a severe outcome: the children were to live with the father, the father had sole parental responsibility, and the mother was to have no time and no communication with the children unless agreed, apart from limited cards/gifts and information-sharing. The Full Court held that the appeal was largely an attempt to re-argue evidence, re-weight recordings, revisit factual findings, and introduce material that was available at trial. None of that established appealable error.🧩 Facts and Issu

In Anselmo & Anselmo [2026] FedCFamC1A 87, the Full Court dismissed the mother’s parenting appeal but allowed her property appeal in part. The most practical parenting point is this: the mother complained on appeal that the primary judge wrongly relied on an adversarial psychological report from Dr Phil Watts, but she had not applied to exclude it at trial, had long known the father intended to rely on it, and had herself relied on its contents in closing submissions. The Court held that, in those circumstances, the report was properly before the primary judge and no appealable error was shown. The property appeal succeeded only because the primary judge failed to give adequate weight to

In Winston & Winston [2026] FedCFamC1A 88, Austin J dismissed the mother’s appeal from final parenting orders requiring the child to live with the father in rural Queensland and spend time with the mother. The mother had sought to relocate with the child to Brisbane, but the primary judge found the father offered greater stability, security and routine. On appeal, the mother argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Court did not reconvene the matter to seek further submissions about her fallback option of remaining in City C. Austin J rejected that argument: the mother had ample opportunity to present her case, had effectively disavowed City C as a workable option, and the p

In Agar & Lemus [2026] FedCFamC1A 86, the Full Court allowed the husband’s appeal after final property orders were later amended under the slip rule in a way that substantially changed the parties’ obligations. The key error was that the primary judge used r 10.13 to amend orders so that the husband became exposed to the wife’s historical income tax liabilities dating back to 2004, even though the wife had not sought that order at trial and the husband had never agreed to share those liabilities. The Full Court held this was not a mere correction of an accidental slip — it was a controversial substantive amendment made without procedural fairness.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties comme

In Metzger & Dimov (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1A 85, Austin J dismissed the husband’s appeal from costs orders made after the parties’ financial proceedings ended with a “walk away” outcome: each party retained their own property and liabilities, and no property adjustment orders were made. The husband argued this was effectively the result he had been seeking for about 12 months, so the wife should pay his costs. But the appeal failed because his costs application ultimately related only to $23,290 for his privately retained lawyers preparing for and appearing on the final day of trial, and most of his appeal grounds complained about earlier procedural grievances that had nothing to do with