Szabo & Associates News & Updates

Background

In property proceedings, it can sometimes be the case that one party will seek to dispose of assets, or otherwise arrange their financial affairs, to prevent the other party from receiving a share of an asset, or all of the assets, of the relationship.

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.

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.

In March 2019, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on an alleged $40 million corporate fraud investigation instigated on claims by a whistleblower within National Australia Bank. The alleged, a company director, was arrested and charged with over 50 bribery and corruption offences. It follows a 12-month investigation by the state’s financial crimes squad.