Szabo & Associates News & Updates

Background

Although three years of protracted proceedings had already passed, in giving consideration as to whether to make final parenting orders, the Federal Circuit Court in Geisler v Geisler (2018) decided that it was still in the best interests of the two young children involved, aged nearly 5 and 8 years, to delay proceedings for a further 12 months. How would the Court justify yet further delay given the time already spent in the Court system, the uncertainty for the family and the pressure on the Court’s time?

We recently wrote about a significant case that had reached the High Court (“Who’s the Daddy”? Sperm Donor’s Parental Dispute Reaches the High Court). This case has been widely reported and, on the 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its decision.

In the case of Elford & Elford (2016), the Full Family Court dismissed the appeal of a wife who was seeking an increase from the 10% of the $1.4m asset pool she had been awarded, on separation, to 32%. A large part of the pool consisted of a lottery win of her husband. The wife, on appeal, argued that the Federal Circuit Court trial judge had incorrectly decided that the lottery win was a contribution by the husband rather than a “joint contribution” of them both.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia recently had to consider whether it should make property orders in respect of a relationship that had lasted just 14 months. Adesso & Payton (2019) involved a pilot and an unemployed woman who was caring for a child of a previous relationship.

A recent decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court, Wingecarribee Shire Council v Uri Turgeman t/a Uri Design (2018) provided a reminder of the factors that will be considered by the Court when challenging a development after the expiry of the appeal period.