🧭 Introduction:The case of Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455 stands as a stark reminder of how prolonged litigation, non-compliance with court orders, and abusive conduct can derail family law proceedings. Spanning complex parenting and property issues, this Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) decision by Kari J addresses not only the best interests of the children but also the systemic misuse of the legal process by the father. This judgment also represents a significant application of new powers under Part XIB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).📘 Facts and Issues:🔹 Facts:Parties: Ms Vaughan (Applicant) and Mr Vaughan (Respondent), with five children in

📘 IntroductionIn Woods & Holmes (No 3), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with a key question arising under newly enacted provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): can sensitive counselling records—classified as “protected confidences”—be compelled for production in family law proceedings where mental health is at issue?This case is a benchmark decision under Division 1B of Part XI of the Family Law Act, offering the first judicial interpretation of s 102BA–102BE. It reflects the Court’s attempt to balance the protection of confidential mental health communications with the need to assess a parent's psychological capacity in parenting disputes.📋 Facts and Issu

IntroductionIn Vaughan (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 480, Justice Kari of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) refused Mr Vaughan’s application for leave to commence further proceedings against his former partner. The decision is a sharp reminder of the operation of harmful proceedings orders introduced under the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), designed to prevent repeated, meritless applications that amount to systems abuse and family violence. The Court concluded that the father’s proposed application was vexatious, abusive of process, and “foredoomed to fail,” thus dismissing it under ss 102QAE–102QAF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).FactsMr Vaughan (self-represe

📝 Introductory Paragraph:In Moss & Moss (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) grappled with deeply disturbing allegations of sexual abuse brought by the mother against the father and paternal grandmother. At the heart of the case was the question of whether the children should live with the mother, who fervently believed the abuse occurred, or the father, whom the children had not seen for over two years. Judge Brasch meticulously reviewed extensive evidence, including drawings, s 93A interviews, medical records, expert reports, and the mother’s conduct, ultimately concluding that the abuse allegations could not be substantiated. Paradoxically, it was the

📘 Introductory Paragraph:In the high-profile family law case of Caldwell & Caldwell [2025] FedCFamC1F 506, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with deciding whether assets held in long-standing discretionary trusts should be considered "property" of a marriage under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Justice Carew's comprehensive judgment delves into decades of trust law and family law jurisprudence, ultimately dismissing the wife’s application to have trust assets included in the divisible marital property. The case is a significant reiteration of the principle that not all assets a party can control will be treated as their property in fa

📝 IntroductionIn Benson & Jeffreys (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia grappled with the tension between therapeutic confidentiality and the evidentiary needs of family law proceedings. At the heart of the dispute was a psychologist’s objection to the release of her notes concerning the mother, who alleged that the father had perpetrated family violence. Justice Bennett was called upon to determine whether these records—potentially sensitive and protected confidences—should be made available for inspection by the father's legal team in the lead-up to a final parenting hearing. The judgment stands as a key precedent in the post-2025 application of Division 1B of the

🔍 Introductory ParagraphIn the recent decision of Ms BA Venter & Mr C Venter [2025] FedCFamC1F 329, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), per Jarrett J, grappled with two crucial interlocutory applications in a heated family property dispute: one seeking extensive financial disclosure through subpoenas, and another aiming to access records from past family proceedings. The ruling navigates complex intersections between disclosure obligations, the scope of access under rule 15.13, legal professional privilege, and forensic fairness.📜 Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant wife (Ms BA Venter) alleged that her former husband (Mr C Venter) had obfuscated a significant

🧾 IntroductionIn Mihova & Mihova (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 284, Justice Schonell faced a procedural skirmish in a deeply entangled financial family law dispute. The case revolved around whether the Court should allow a separate determination of specific property and financial issues before a full trial. With multiple parties, corporate structures, and claims of misappropriated millions, the Court was asked to intervene early to potentially narrow the trial scope. The judge, however, took a cautionary stance, dismissing the application for being inconsistent with the objectives of just, efficient, and proportionate litigation.📌 Facts and Issues🔍 FactsProceedings commenced by the wife in De

🔍 IntroductionIn Pacek & Saltzer (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 252, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed complex intersecting issues of family and corporate law. Justice Wilson was called upon to enforce prior consent orders relating to indemnity and the execution of legal documents, while also determining the relevance of corporate indemnity prohibitions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The case brings to the fore a critical intersection of family law property proceedings and corporate governance, especially concerning director indemnities arising from court orders.📘 Facts & IssuesFactsMs Pacek (wife) and Mr Saltzer (husband) were engaged in complex financial

📝 IntroductionIn the matter of Nishitani & Nishitani [2025] FedCFamC1F 268, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed a serious contravention of a family law order. At the heart of the dispute was a vehicle—symbolic not only of transport but of power dynamics in post-separation arrangements. The Court considered whether the husband’s sale of the vehicle, in direct defiance of a court order, warranted imprisonment or a substantial financial penalty. Justice Schonell delivered a meticulous analysis grounded in statutory obligations and procedural fairness, ultimately reinforcing the authority of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).📋 Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, separated

🧾 Introduction:In Smits & Jansen [2025] FedCFamC1F 352, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was once again called upon to resolve a protracted parenting dispute regarding a 10-year-old child, X, burdened by a complex history of conflict between his parents and a recent diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Despite emotional arguments and proposed changes from both parents, the Court declined to alter the current shared-care arrangement, holding that there had been no “significant change of circumstances” warranting a departure from final orders made in 2022. Justice McGuire’s comprehensive reasoning reaffirmed the principle that entrenched parental conflict and

🧑‍⚖️ INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH:In the matter of Glos & Glos (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 318, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered a significant ruling on legal ethics, professional responsibility, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. Justice Howard ordered the disqualification of the wife’s legal representatives after she improperly accessed the husband's privileged documents during ongoing financial proceedings. This judgment underscores the principle that legal strategy cannot be built on unlawfully obtained information, even where fairness in family law might otherwise emphasise transparency.📋 FACTS AND ISSUES:Facts:The husband (Mr Glos) and wife (Ms Glos) are e