Family Law Express
Get Your Free Account!
Menu  ▼
  • DECISIONS
  • HOME
  • NEWS
  • FAMILY LAW BRIEF
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • VIDEOS
  • FORUM
  • CONTACT US
  • Judgments
  • Guides
Fed. Magistrates Court
Federal Circuit Court
Family Court of Australia
Family Court of WA
Full Court of the Family Court
High Court of Australia
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Supreme Court (All States)
Childrens Court (All States)
 
Fed. Magistrates Court
Federal Circuit Court
Family Court of Australia
Family Court of WA
Full Court of the Family Court
High Court of Australia
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Supreme Court (All States)
Childrens Court (All States)
 
Fed. Magistrates Court
Federal Circuit Court
Family Court of Australia
Family Court of WA
Full Court of the Family Court
High Court of Australia
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Supreme Court (All States)
Childrens Court (All States)
 
Fed. Magistrates Court
Federal Circuit Court
Family Court of Australia
Family Court of WA
Full Court of the Family Court
High Court of Australia
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Supreme Court (All States)
Childrens Court (All States)
 
Fed. Magistrates Court
Federal Circuit Court
Family Court of Australia
Family Court of WA
Full Court of the Family Court
High Court of Australia
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Supreme Court (All States)
Childrens Court (All States)
 
 
   

Search by FreeSearch | Catchwords | Judicial Officer | Case Title | Legislated Cited | Cases Cited

   
    Keyword Tags  appeal


Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
1: Kennedy & Thorne [2016] FamCAFC 189 | September 26, 2016
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Post-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Judges:  Aldridge JCronin JStrickland J

Background: The parties met over the internet in early to mid-2006. She was a 36 year old, born and living overseas with limited English skills. She was previously divorced, had no children and no assets of substance. He was a 67 year old, was a property developer and worth approximately $18 to $24 million. He was divorced from his first wife, with whom he had three children, now all in adulthood. Having met on a dating website in early to mid-2006, the parties then commenced speaking with each other on the telephone. They spoke in English and in (language omitted). The applicant agreed that the deceased said to her: “I will come to (country omitted) and we will see if we like each other. If I like you I will marry you but you will have to sign paper. My money is for my children.”  
 
  [Legal Issue]The Federal Circuit Court initially set aside the agreements, finding that they were signed “under duress born of inequality of bargaining power where there was no outcome to her that was fair and reasonable”. However, the Full Family Court ruled the agreements were binding, and said there had not been duress, undue influence or unconscionable conduct on the husband’s part.   [Court Orders]The appeal be allowed.     




Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
2: Yip & Wreford and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 21 | February 19, 2015
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination
Judges:  May JStrickland JThackray CJ

Background: The appellant father in this case sought a review of a child support departure determination and a subsequent Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision which both determined an increased taxable income for child support purposes. The father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court on this matter was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision. 
 
  [Legal Issue]This was an application for leave to appeal from the dismissal of an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which increased the appellant’s taxable income for child support purposes. The application was dismissed with costs. In its judgment, the court analysed and determined a number of significant questions of law arising out of the interpretation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) which would be of interest to family law specialists.   [Court Orders]The appeal application was dismissed. The Court found no error in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.     




Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
3: Wallace & Stelzer and Anor [2013] FamCAFC 199 | December 11, 2013
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Binding Financial Agreement, Binding Financial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Judges:  Finn JRyan JStrickland J

Background: A couple, known by the court as Mr Wallace and Ms Stelzer, met in 1998 at the Sydney club where Ms Stelzer worked soon after Mr Wallace split from his first wife. At the time, he was 51 and she was 38. They married seven years later and entered into a prenuptial agreement that Mr Wallace would pay Ms Stelzer $3.25m if the relationship failed within four years. It failed within two.  
 
  [Legal Issue]Mr Wallace tried to renege on their pre-nuptial (binding financial) agreement, arguing that the relevant legislation was unconstitutional because it was retrospective. He argued that his pre-nuptial agreement was signed before the 2010 amendments and so his agreement should be deemed invalid. Mr Wallace also fought to have the pre-nuptial agreement deemed invalid, claiming that Ms Stelzer behaved fraudulently by making "false promises of love and desire for children". He also said his lawyers did not give him adequate legal advice and make clear the pros and cons of the pre-nuptial agreement. He said that his lawyers had taken only minutes to sign it.    [Court Orders]The Full Court of the Family Court ruled the pre-nuptial agreement was binding and that the amended legislation "can have a retrospective operation which is constitutionally valid". The woman who previously worked as a pole dancer is set to receive $3.25 million from her ex-husband after the Family Court ruled against his bid to have their pre-nuptial agreement overturned because of her "false promises". The ruling means that there is much more certainty about the validity of pre-nuptial a     




Family Court of Australia emblem
4: Fenton & Marvel [2012] FamCAFC 150 | September 12, 2012
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Costs, De Facto Relationship
Judges:  Bryant CJFaulks DCJFinn J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     




Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
5: Tekosis & Tekosis [2012] FamCAFC 106 | August 26, 2012
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Notice to Appeal, Spousal Maintenance
Judges:  Strickland J

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     




Federal Magistrates Court emblem
6: Chamberlain & Slade [2012] FMCAfam 658 | July 12, 2012
Court or Tribunal: Family Law Division of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Catchwords: Carers Allowance, Child Support
Judges:  Brown FM

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     




Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
7: Simpson & Brockmann [2010] FamCAFC 37 | March 3, 2010
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Biological Mother, Birth Mother, Contravention, Meaningful Relationship, Non-Parent, Parentage, Parental, Parental Rights, Parenting Orders, Relocation, Same Sex Parents, Same Sex Relationship, Step Parent
Judges:  Coleman JJarrett FMMay JWarnick J

Background: Two women had lived in an intimate relationship for 9 years and two children were born during this time using IVF, with each woman being the biological parent of one child (same sex relationship). One woman then left the relationship taking her birth child with her. Orders were issued for the two children to spend significant time with the other woman and to see their sibling. One woman then relocated further away making the order impractical and the other woman appealed arguing that the first woman was not facilitating an ongoing meaningful relationship between her and the child whom she considered that she had parented.  
 
  [Legal Issue]Each woman claimed to be a parent of the other’s child, although the trial judge found to the contrary as only a biological parent or an adoptive parent meets the legal definition of being a parent. Both women submitted that each child regarded each of the women as a mother. The Appeal Court found that if a child is born by an artificial conception procedure while the woman is married to a man and the procedure is carried out with the joint consent of both adults, then the child is their child for the purposes of the Act, or both the woman and man are parents of the child. The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.   [Court Orders]The Appeal Court supported the ruling by the trial judge that the women were not parents of the child whom they did not give birth to (non-parent). The appeal was dismissed.     




Full Court of the Family Court of Australia emblem
8: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 | December 15, 2006
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Equal Parenting Time, Equal Shared Parental Responsibility, Interim Parenting Orders, Parenting Orders, Shared Parenting, Sole Parental Responsibility, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges:  Boland JBryant CJFinn J

Background: The parties were married in July 1996 and although there was a separation in December 1999 they finally separated in late May 2006. While there was some dispute as to the circumstances of the separation, the facts allowed the judge at first instance to find that the appellant father chose to leave the matrimonial home and bring the marriage to an end. Thereafter there was some dispute as to what happened in relation to the care of the children. Collier J recorded that the respondent mother asserted that after a period of time the parties reached an agreement and the appellant father commenced spending time with the children on each alternate weekend. The appellant father’s case was that the respondent mother removed the children from him and made it very difficult for him to have 
 
  [Legal Issue]This is an appeal by the father against a decision for interim orders. In this case the Judge in the previous decision did not apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as stipulated in the family law act, nor did he consider what was in the child's best interests, as listed in the primary and additional considerations in the family law act. Instead the Judge applied the principle previously determined in Cowling v Cowling [1998] FamCA 19, commonly referred to as the "Status Quo". The principle of Status Quo determined that if a child was in a well-settled environment, the child's arrangements should not be altered. As such, the Judge determined that in interim hearings, the Status Quo should be the prevailing principle, not what was determined to be in the    [Court Orders]The Full Court of the Family Court determined that the appeal was successful, and that: (1) The presumption that an order for equal shared parental responsibility will be in the child’s best interests still applies in interim cases, even if neither party asks for such an order. (2) Where that presumption is applied, the Court must still, at an interim hearing, consider the practicality of the child spending equal time with each of the parents under Section 65AA of the Act. (3) Even wh     



Follow @familylawxpress

STAY INFORMED

Please wait...
You are successfully subscribed!
There was an error with subscription attempt.

Family Law Caselaw

  •  Category List
  •  by Keyword Tags
  •  by Cited Experts
  •  by ICL's
  •  by Judicial Officer
  •  by Mental Disorders
  •  by Decisions Outcomes
  •  by Most Recent Decisions
join our family law forum

Courts & Tribunals

Categories

open all | close all

Most Common Keywords

appeal parental responsibility unacceptable risk sole parental responsibility succession child support financial agreement False Allegations Property de facto relationship Relocation Family Consultant Child Support Registrar parenting orders meaningful relationship Independent Children’s Lawyer binding financial agreement Inheritance family provision DOCS pre-nuptial agreement child abuse Child Support Agency spousal maintenance Centrelink domestic relationship Social Security Appeals Tribunal duress With whom a child lives percentage of care

Most Popular Decisions this Hour

  • Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Goode & Goode [2006]... The judgment of Goode makes it clear that no longer are the best interests of the child necessarily... 28,293 views
  • Simic & Norton [2017] FamCA 1007 Simic & Norton [2017... A Family Court judge has delivered a blistering judgment on the “culture of bitter, adversarial and... 5,561 views
  • Mitchell & Mitchell [2014] FCCA 2526 Mitchell & Mitchell... The father has conceded that he has denied the children their right to a meaningful relationship wit... 5,215 views
  • Darveniza v Darveniza & Drakos as Executors of the Estate of Bojan Darveniza and Ors [2014] QSC 37 Darveniza v Darveniza �... A multi-millionaire property investor’s son, who was left nothing in his late father’s will, has bee... 4,834 views
  • Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 231 ALR 277; (2006) 81 ALJR 254 Magill v Magill [2006] HC... Tort – Deceit – Paternity – Whether tort of deceit can be applied in marital context in relation to... 4,268 views
  • Helbig & Rowe [2015] FamCA 146 Helbig & Rowe [2015]... The mother has made serious allegations of child sexual abuse by the father against a child of the m... 4,088 views
  • Kennon v Spry; Spry v Kennon [2008] HCA 56 Kennon v Spry; Spry v Ken... Family law – Courts having jurisdiction in matrimonial causes – Powers – Jurisdiction under s 79(1)... 3,996 views
  • Farnell & Anor and Chanbua [2016] FCWA 17 - (The Baby Gammy Surrogacy Saga) Farnell & Anor and C... A baby with Down syndrome at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute was held by the Family... 3,638 views
  • Ellison and Anor & Karnchanit [2012] FamCA 602 Ellison and Anor & K... On 18 March 2011, accompanied by his wife Ms Solano, Mr Ellison brought two eight week old children... 3,281 views
  • Groth & Banks [2013] FamCA 430 Groth & Banks [2013]... After separation, this couple remained friends and the man agreed to donate sperm so that the woman... 3,209 views

Family Law RSS feeds
Family Law in the News

Copyright 1999-2012 © Family Law Express, All Rights Reserved.Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions|