In Shinohara v Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126, the Full Court confirms that, as a result of the amendments made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024, it is no longer possible to include property that no longer exists in the hands of either party as an add back on the balance sheet.
This case involved an appeal against orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in property settlement proceedings between a husband and wife, where the husband’s parents were the second and third respondents.
This case concerns an application by the de facto husband under s 90SM of the FLA; he asserts that the de facto wife has existing property interests as a beneficiary under a discretionary trust. The de facto husband is not and has never been a beneficiary under the relevant family trust.
Mr Farrar appealed the decision of the primary judge to divide all of the available property between his two previous de facto partners, effectively leaving him with nothing. The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, constituted by Tree, Baumann and Williams JJ, dismissed Mr Farrar’s appeal and upheld the orders of the primary judge.
The appellant wife successfully appealed the order made by the primary judge that she own and occupy property in Australia as a condition precedent to international travel with the child who was the subject of the proceeding. Christie J, sitting as the appeal court, held that the primary judge did not have the power to make the order in circumstances where was no logical connection between the order and the care, welfare or development of the child.
The applicant de facto wife successfully appealed the decision of the primary judge to uphold the decision of the senior registrar to refuse her application for maintenance. The appeal court, constituted by Aldrige J, held that the primary judge had erred in finding that the de facto wife could adequately support herself in circumstances where she had reduced her expenses to make ends meet in the absence of provision of financial support by the de facto husband.
Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs – The uphill battle to have a foreign prenuptial agreement upheld in the UK.
Hague Child Abduction Convention: Australian court does not accept that the return of an Australian First Nations child to Belgium would place the child in an intolerable situation, notwithstanding her Aboriginality would not be taken into account by the courts in Belgium in the same way as it would in Australia.
Hague Child Abduction Convention: Australian court declines to find that an infant child did not have a place of habitual residence notwithstanding ambiguity in the intentions of her parents.
Full Court declines to vary final parenting orders where no relevant change of circumstance established by the father. The same standard applies irrespective of whether the variation sought to the orders is of a major or minor nature.
(03) 9605 1700