Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
Ophoven & Berzina [2025] FedCFamC1A 97 (28 May 2025) (Aldridge, Gill and Christie JJ)
PARENTING – Appeal from declaration made pursuant to s 69VA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the respondent is a parent of the child – Where the appellant contends the declaration was erroneous as the respondent lacked a biological connection to the child – Discussion of the term “parent” – Consideration of Masson v Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554 – Where a presumption of parentage arose from the respondent being named on the birth certificate – Where the presumption was not rebutted – Where the appellant placed the respondent’s parent status in issue – No error established in the making of a declaration of parentage – Adequacy of reasons – Where the reasons do not reveal the factual findings relied on for the order of equal shared parental responsibility – Where the reasons do not reveal the primary judge’s acceptance or rejection of evidence on coercive and controlling behaviour – Reasons inadequate – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.
Zha & Wun (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 101 (13 June 2025) (Aldridge, Gill and Christie JJ)
RECUSAL APPLICATION – Where one of the judges of the Full Court hearing the appeal previously heard an ex parte application from the appellant wife and granted a series of freezing orders preserving assets pending the appeal – Where the orders were subsequently extended by consent – Where the respondent husband makes a recusal application on the basis of apprehended bias – Whether comments made by the judge in the ex parte hearing amounted to an acceptance of the wife’s allegations of fraud against the husband – Where the judge was identifying and testing the case being put – Where there is no logical connection between the purported finding of fraud and the proper disposition of the appeal – Application dismissed.
PROPERTY – Large asset pool – Significant non-disclosure by the respondent husband at trial – Where the appellant wife contends the property adjustment should have been significantly larger due to the non-disclosure – Where the primary judge found a company was the husband’s alter ego – Where the wife contends the inclusion of the value of the company in the asset pool was mere fact-finding as opposed to a consequence of non-disclosure – Adequacy of reasons as to consideration of non-disclosure – Held the primary judge’s attribution of the company’s value to the husband was an appropriate response to non-disclosure – Where the property adjustment was just and equitable – Where the reasoning process is clear – Dispute as to ownership of property – Whether the primary judge erred by not finding the husband to be the beneficial owner of two properties via resulting trust – Where the factual findings precluded such a conclusion – Where the wife concedes there is no direct evidence to support her claim – Disputed balance sheet – Where the wife asserts the primary judge erred by not attributing a value to various assets of the husband – Findings open on the facts – Where one factual error was de minimis relative to the total asset pool – Appeal dismissed.
Yeng & Sun [2025] FedCFamC1A 106 (18 June 2025) (Gill and Brasch JJ; McClelland DCJ)
PROPERTY – Appeal from orders dividing the parties’ property so the husband and wife received 50 per cent each of the matrimonial pool – Where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in assessing the contributions of the parties as equal – Where the appellant contends the primary judge provided inadequate reasons to explain his treatment of funds provided to the appellant by his parents – Where reasons do not establish why the primary judge held that a sum of cash from the appellant’s parents was a gift to both spouses – Reasons inadequate – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates granted – Written submissions in respect to whether the matter should be remitted or whether the Full Court should re-exercise discretion.
Pantoja & Pantoja [2025] FedCFamC1A 104 (18 June 2025) (Gill and Carter JJ; McClelland DCJ)
PROPERTY – Appeal from final property orders made pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the primary judge determined that family violence made the respondent’s otherwise equal contributions more difficult, onerous or arduous – No error of fact – Adequacy of reasons – Error of law – Reasons as to why the primary judge made an adjustment in favour of the respondent inadequate – Appeal allowed – Matter remitted for rehearing.
Goncharov & Goncharova [2025] FedCFamC1A 107 (19 June 2025) (Austin, McGuire and Curran JJ)
PROPERTY – Where the husband appeals final property orders as to the exchange rate used to value the parties’ properties in Country B – Where the primary judge erred by valuing the Country B properties using the 2022 exchange rate and not the rate at the date of trial – Where the error is discrete and confined – Where the husband’s complaint of lack of procedural fairness is without merit – Where the remaining grounds of appeal were abandoned – Appeal allowed – Re-exercise of discretion – Where the parties agreed for the value of the Country B properties to be corrected using the current exchange rate – Costs certificates ordered.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)
Minke & Minke (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 133 (28 February 2025) (Wilson J)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request by a third party to inspect the court record – related proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in which the applicant for inspection is involved.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –applicant applying to adjourn the trial of the proceeding in this court – applicant for inspection’s interest in the proceeding is dependent upon the outcome of the Federal Court proceeding – application for inspection of the court file in this proceeding granted
Mihova & Mihova [2025] FedCFamC1F 113 (03 March 2025) (Behrens J)
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS –Application in a proceeding – Property proceedings – Where the Wife sought a restraint on the Husband’s solicitors continuing to act for him – Where Wife had an initial consultation with those solicitors before she commenced proceedings – Where Application presents novel factual circumstances – Where it was argued that the Husband’s solicitors and the Husband should be restrained because of the risk of breach of duty of confidence – Where it was argued that the restraint is necessary to protect the appearance of justice –Where it is found that confidential information was given by the Wife to the solicitor with whom she had the consultation –Where there is an information barrier in place – Where undertakings have been given – Where it is found there is no real risk of the Wife’s confidential information being disclosed to the solicitors who now work for the Husband –Where there is no issue of time or delay telling against the restraint – Where the risk of a litigant having appointments with multiple solicitors for the purpose of conflicting them out for the other party considered – Where protection of the administration of justice does not require a restraint against the Husband and his solicitors – Where the Application in a Proceeding is dismissed
Vida & Vida (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 191 (12 March 2025) (Aldridge J)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by the single expert under r 7.19 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) for the payment of his fees – Where the expert was asked to value entities up to June 2024 – Where the expert had concerns about the accuracy of the 2024 accounts and relied on the 2023 accounts – Where the court has found the 2024 accounts were not a true reflection of the value of the entities – Where the husband relied on the report – Where the husband disputes the charge of interest – Husband to pay the single expert’s fees including interest.
Orlova & Florea [2025] FedCFamC1F 156 (14 March 2025) (Carter J)
PARENTING –Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer do not seek any orders for time between the father and the child –Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where time between the father and the child was previously supervised – Where supervised time between the father and the child was suspended on the fourth visit – Where the father has not spent time with the child for a significant period of time – Where the father has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Where the psychiatrist assessing the father considers that the father will not be able to improve without therapeutic intervention – Where the father does not wish to attend upon any psychologist – Where it is not currently in the best interests of the child to spend time with the father – Orders made for mother to provide father with written updates regarding the child twice a year and to provide the father with a photograph a year of the child – No orders for time made.
Zeelen & Zeelen [2025] FedCFamC1F 179 (20 March 2025) (Gill J)
PARENTING – INTERIM APPLICATION – Where previous final orders have been made – Where the father seeks to relocate the elder child’s residence to Country B – Where the father’s new wife has relocated to Country B – Where it is agreed the younger child will remain living in Australia with the mother – Where the elder child has spent almost no time with the mother in over a year – Found there has been a significant change of circumstances and circumstances which necessitate reopening proceedings – Father permitted to relocate the elder child to Country B on an interim basis
Jingyi & Chao (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC1F 184 (20 March 2025) (Harper J)
EX TEMPORE – INJUNCTIONS – Preservation of property – Where the applicant wife files an urgent application in a proceeding seeking in the first instance ex parte relief in relation to a cryptocurrency holding said to have been owned or dealt with by the first respondent husband – Where supporting material suggests the cryptocurrency holding might be worth in the excess of USD2,000,000 – Where the wife contends that the only source of potential payment of her relief sought in the Commonwealth of Australia would be the cryptocurrency holding – Where the wife seeks that the husband surrender his mobile phone and any other electronic devices to his solicitor for safekeeping – Where such order is too onerous even for a short period of time – Where orders are made for restraints to be placed upon the husband preventing him from accessing electronic devices for the purpose of dealing with cryptocurrency and appointing a trustee pursuant to r 5.16 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Schultheiss & Schultheiss (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 181 (21 March 2025) (Schonell J)
COSTS – Where the wife sought an order for costs on the sole basis that various offers of settlement were made by her to resolve the proceedings – Where the husband sought the costs application be dismissed – Where a counter offer one per cent less than the offer made is not in all the circumstances a careful, serious and thoughtful consideration of the offer but instead just a position adopted to negotiate – A party who rejects an offer of settlement or makes such a counter offer does so at their peril – Consideration of factors under s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied that the offers made by the wife is a circumstance that justifies the making of a costs order – Costs ordered as assessed in a sum of $165,000 for the costs of the proceedings and fixed in the sum of $9,000 for the costs of the Application in a Proceeding.
Re: Devin (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 368 (05 June 2025) (Strum J)
IDENTIFICATION OF A WITNESS – Application by media organisation for approval of communication to the public of an account of proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that identifies an adversarial expert witness and the hospital at which the expert is employed – Consideration of s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where application is unopposed – Where it is in the public interest – Where there is no potential to impact on the best interests of the child the subject of the proceedings – Embarrassment not a basis for refusal of the application – Application granted.
Re: Laura [2025] FedCFamC1F 408 (20 June 2025) (Altobelli J)
PARENTING – Gender Dysphoria –Where consent orders are made – Where the Court distinguishes this case from the facts of that in Re Kelvin – – Where all parties seek a declaration of Gillick competence for the subject child – Where the subject child wishes to undergo “stage two” gender affirming treatment – Where the Court declares that the child is Gillick competent – Where an auxiliary name change order is sought to affirm the new gender identity of the child – Where the Court considers that the proposed name change will benefit the welfare of the child – Where the Court discusses the benefit of including subject children of advanced age in gender affirming proceedings.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 2)
Luga & Hayes [2025] FedCFamC2F 6 (08 January 2025) (Parker J)
PARENTING – allegations of sexualised behaviour on part of child – competing allegations of risk to child including concerns relating to parental mental health and substance abuse – Father presents as unduly suspicious and critical of Mother and her parenting - longstanding equal time arrangement no longer suitable
Siskas & Diaz (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 292 (07 March 2025) (McGinn J)
CONTRAVENTION – parenting orders – counts prior to and following 6 May 2024 commencement of amendments to Act – contraventions without reasonable excuse – differing sanction regimes – separate and then global consideration of sanctions to be imposed – post-separation parenting course, fines, compensatory/make up time, bond, costs – explanation of bond prior to entry of orders
Midal & Duncan [2025] FedCFamC2F 302 (10 March 2025) (Obradovic J)
CONTRAVENTION –Whether baptism is an exercise of parental responsibility – Enrolment of child into daycare and school – Unilateral decision making – Contraventions straddle 2023 amendments – Contraventions established – No reasonable excuse