ByLawyers News and Updates
  • Publication updates
    • Federal
    • New South Wales
    • Victoria
    • Queensland
    • South Australia
    • Western Australia
    • Northern Territory
    • Tasmania
    • Australian Capital Territory
  • By area of law
    • Bankruptcy and Liquidation
    • Business and Franchise
    • Companies, Trusts, Partnerships and Superannuation
    • Conveyancing and Property
    • Criminal Law
    • Defamation and Protecting Reputation
    • Employment Law
    • Family Law
    • Immigration
    • Litigation
    • Neighbourhood Disputes
    • Personal injury
    • Personal Property Securities
    • Practice Management
    • Security of Payments
    • Trade Marks
    • Wills and Estates
  • Legal alerts
  • Articles
  • By Lawyers

101 Family Law Answers – FED

22 June 2020 by By Lawyers

The By Lawyers reference manual 101 Family Law Answers has been updated with recent cases in the following sections:

Arbitration in family law

See Palgrove & Palgrove [2020] FCCA 846 at [12]-[29] for a discussion of arbitrability and the court’s jurisdiction to facilitate arbitration.

Injunctions

Dunworth & Falletti [2020] FamCA 178 where the balance of convenience favoured the grant of restraint.

Rahman & Rahman [2020] FamCA 156 where the husband’s appeal failed against an injunction that restrained him from leaving Australia until a lump sum payment was made.

Orders – Variation and the rule in Rice & Asplund

See Findlay & Reis [2020] FCCA 425 for an application to vary a parenting order, which was dismissed in accordance with the principles in Rice & Asplund.

Relocation

Franklyn & Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256 where a mother’s unilateral relocation was allowed on appeal, as she was still able to adhere to interim consent orders for the father’s fortnightly contact.

Soulos & Sorbo [2019] FamCAFC 231 where the father’s appeal was allowed to set aside the parenting orders permitting the mother and child to relocate overseas.

Section 75(2) factors – Disparity in financial positions

In Metzer & Metzer [2020] FCCA 119 the wife was unable to establish a 10% likely loss of earnings on the evidence presented. An adjustment of 2% only was made in favour of the wife.

Five factors were listed at [182] that are usually considered when determining residual earning capacity:

  1. physical capacity, including the reasonable restrictions required by reason of injuries;
  2. psychological capacity, taking into account any necessary restrictions, of which there was no evidence in this case;
  3. vocational capacity, for suitable jobs within suitable occupations, including all of her education, training and experience and transferable skills;
  4. labour market, including factors such as the existence of such jobs in the real world labour market which is to be considered, including any barriers to entry and competitiveness including by reason of work history and age; and
  5. earnings, including the likely range of earnings for such available jobs by reference to reliable published labour market statistics or current labour market research information.

101 Family Law Answers is a valuable resource for practitioners. It is available as a related guide and in the reference materials folder in all By Lawyers Family Law publications. It provides more detailed information and relevant cases on the various Family Law matter types – Property Settlement, Children, Financial Agreements and Divorce. It also covers some general procedural issues and the enforcement of orders.

Filed Under: Family Law, Federal, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Publication Updates, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia Tagged With: arbitration, children, children orders, family law, injunctions, property settlement, relocation

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Preferred State

Connect with us

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2025 · Privacy Policy
Created and hosted by LEAP · Log in