ByLawyers News and Updates

Family Law Courts e-filing updates -FED

by

The Family Law Courts have announced that they will shortly release a number of enhancements to the online filing system, which are a result of their survey of the legal profession in 2017. In summary, the changes will include:

  • the ability to file a greater number of applications online;
  • support for fee reduction/exemption applications for financial hardship;
  • online lodgement for correspondence;
  • ability to indicate;
    • safety considerations;
    • urgency; and
    • the need for interpreters;
  • ability to upload 30 MB sized documents; and
  • support for parenting orders sought with Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Exemptions.

More information will be published – and the By Lawyers Family Law Guides updated – when the Court releases more details of the facilities.

Family Law Act amendments – FED

by

Family Law Act amendments, contained in the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018, commenced on 1 September 2018.

By Lawyers have updated the Children and Property Settlement commentaries  in our Family Law Guide to reflect these amendments. Broadly speaking, the changes are jurisdictional and procedural, with particular emphasis on enabling the court to better address issues with family violence.

The amendments include:

Transferring property proceedings when the value of property exceeds $20,000

The legislation provides that if property proceedings are issued in a court of summary jurisdiction and the value of the property exceeds $20,000, then if the respondent seeks different orders than the applicant and one of the parties does not consent to the court dealing with the application, then the matter must be transferred to the Family Court/Federal Circuit Court, or to the relevant Supreme Court: see: s 46 and s 46A. In practice, matters are usually transferred to the Federal Circuit Court.

As a result of the amendments, these sections enable State and Territory regulations to prescribe an amount higher than $20,000. This applies to all proceedings instituted from 1 September.

Proceedings with no reasonable prospects of success

Section 45A provides that:

  1. The court may make a decree for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of proceedings if the court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceedings or that part of the proceedings;
  2. The proceedings do not need to be hopeless or bound to fail to have no reasonable prospect of success;
  3. The court may make such a decree of its own initiative or upon application by a party;
  4. The court may make a costs order as a result of the decree; and
  5. The court may dismiss all or part of proceedings at any stage if it is satisfied that the proceedings or part is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

Section 118, which previously provided for the court to summarily dismiss frivolous or vexatious proceedings was repealed, effective from 1 September.

Interim parenting/Family violence orders

Section 69ZL provides that the court may give reasons in short form for a decision it makes in relation to an interim parenting order.

Section 68P(2A) which relates to the explanation provided by the court when an order is made which is inconsistent with a family violence order, provides that an explanation is not required to be given where the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child not to receive an explanation.

The 21-day suspension of family law orders by a family violence order previously provided for in s 68T(1)(b) no longer applies. It has been replaced by two further options. Any revival, variation or suspension of family law orders now ceases to have effect at the earliest of:

  • the time the interim order stops being in force; and
  • the time specified in the interim order as the time at which the revival, variation or suspension ceases to have effect; and
  • the time the order, injunction or arrangement is affected by an order (however described) made by a court, under s 68R or otherwise, after the revival, variation or suspension.

See the commentaries in the By Lawyers Family Law Guide for more information.

FED – Family Law – Child support agreements

by

In line with the recent amendment to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, By Lawyers have amended the child support agreements, binding and limited, in our Family Law – Children Guide, as well as the payee and payer letters of advice that accompany the binding child support agreement. These precedents are found in the Settling it Early section within the Child Support folder.

The changes concern the suspension of child support agreements when the payee is not an eligible carer and there are no arrangements in the agreement for change of care. We have consequently added a clause to each agreement that states:

In accordance with section 86(1)(2)(a) of the Act, the terms of this agreement are capable of being suspended for up 26 weeks if the payee ceases to be an eligible carer of the child for a period of 28 days or more.

The suspension period in child support agreements can be reduced to less than 26 weeks, however pursuant to the legislation, 26 weeks is the maximum suspension period.

Pursuant to the the Act, the eligible carer will cease to be eligible if they have less than 35% of time with the child. Therefore, if the liable parent has more than 65% of time with the child, this will mean the payee is no longer an eligible carer. In this case the agreement will be suspended and then possibly cease to operate in respect of that particular child pursuant to s 86(1)(2)(a). An optional clause is available that allows the parties to set their own limit that triggers termination:

This agreement will cease to operate in relation to each child … if the care arrangements for the child changes resulting in the payer having more than [insert limit]% care.

The accompanying advice letters discuss the issue and provide advice in addressing s 86.

This is a highly sensitive area for many clients. The By Lawyers guide assists practitioners to operate with confidence.

Family Law – FCC costs increases

by

There have been costs increases in the Federal Circuit Court for itemised costs in family law and child support proceedings, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

The increases are for initiating applications and other hearing-related costs.

An alert has been added to the By Lawyers Children and Property settlement publications.

Courts and tribunals – 1 July fee increases and legislation updates

by

1 July always sees legislative changes, including increases to court fees. Happy New (financial) Year!

The following are some of the important changes commencing 1 July 2018. By Lawyers publications in each state have been updated as appropriate.

LITIGATION, CRIMINAL LAW, FAMILY LAW & DECEASED ESTATES

All States

Fee increases apply in all courts and tribunals.

Injury claims – where damages for permanent impairment and/or non-economic loss are subject to statutory caps (e.g. motor accidents and workers compensation legislation) these maximum amounts have been updated.

Defamation – the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss available under the Uniform Defamation Law is now $398,500.

VIC Supreme Court

All documents for Supreme Court Common Law, Commercial Court and Costs Court matters must now be electronically filed using the RedCrest electronic filing platform. Court users will need to register. See the Supreme Court page ‘Electronic filing and case management’ and the commentary in the By Lawyers Victorian Supreme Court Guide

 

Family Law Courts fees increase 1 July 2018

by

The fees payable in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court are changing from 1 July 2018. These increases will impact on Children and Property Settlement matters as well as Divorce/Nullity.

The By Lawyers Family Law guide will be updated where applicable to reflect these amended fees.

Reference manual – 101 Family Law Answers – commentary added

by

Commentary has been added to the By Lawyers 101 Family Law Answers reference manual in the Children chapter:

Orders – Variation and the rule in Rice & Asplund
To set aside or vary final parenting orders, parties must meet the threshold test set out in Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725. This case provides that where final parenting orders have been made, the court must establish a significant change in circumstances before it sets aside or varies final orders. The rationale is founded on the ‘best interests principle’ and the public interest for parties to not continuously re-litigate parenting matters. …

There is no specific timeframe in which a significant change of circumstance must or must not be shown. It depends on the individual case. There was consideration of the rule in SPS & PLS [2008] FamCAFC 16. In that case the court said at [48] … At whatever stage of a hearing the rule is applied, its application should remain merely a manifestation of the “best interests principle” … The application of the rule is closely connected with the nature of, and degree of, change sought to the earlier order. …

Other useful cases include:

 

Reference Manual – 101 Family Law Answers – additions

by

 

Additions have been made to the 101 Family Law Answers reference manual.

The following commentary was added to Admissibility of settlement negotiations:

A without prejudice offer to settle parenting matters was admitted in the Western Australia case S and K [2007] FCWA 17. In this case the court said:

There is no doubt that it is important to preserve confidentiality and to foster an environment that allows parties to negotiate without fear they will be compromised in an endeavour to settle matters. However, offers can be made for a number of reasons and the overarching principle is always the best interests of the child. It is not the sole consideration but it is the paramount one.

The Court should not be precluded from obtaining information to ensure that the principle is met…

Note: This is a single judge decision and hasn’t been followed in subsequent cases since it was handed down in 2007.

The following useful case references were added to Relocation:

Carne & Feldt [2013] FCCA 1851: the court permitted an interim relocation 100 km (1 hour) away. The child was 6 years old and the mother was relocating to live with her new partner, the father of her unborn child.

Cavanagh & Kennedy [2013] FCCA 345: the mother unilaterally relocated with the parties’ 7 year old daughter to a place an ‘hour and a half away’ despite an earlier final order providing for equal shared parental responsibility and that each ‘parent is restrained from relocating outside the … district unless agreed in writing between the parties’. The court ordered she return.

Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230: dealt with a move of 144 km and whether this constitutes ‘a relocation’.

Family Law – Divorce publication review

by

The By Lawyers Family Law author has reviewed the Divorce publication covering commentary, matter plan and precedents.

Commentary updates include the following additions:

  1. Application without marriage certificate – If the parties do not have a copy of the marriage certificate, an application should be made at the relevant state Births, Deaths and Marriages. In the case of an overseas marriage, if a copy of the marriage certificate cannot be obtained, the applicant may be able to file an affidavit pursuant to r 25.01(3) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules addressing the reasons for the failure to file the marriage certificate.
  2. Appealing a divorce order – In Price & Underwood (Divorce Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 127, the Full Court addressed the issue of whether an appeal may be filed after a divorce order has taken effect. The court was split on the issue, with Boland and Ryan JJ finding that s 93 of the Family Law Act is clear and unambiguous – no appeal lies from a divorce order which has become final. Where a divorce order which has become final the only relief available is a declaration under s 113 that the divorce order is void. May J took the view that a divorce order could be subject to an appeal even if it is of effect, on the basis of a miscarriage of justice.

As there have not been any changes in terms of significant case law or legislative changes in the last 12 months, no changes were made to precedents or the matter plan.

Family Law – Financial agreements publication review

by

The By Lawyers Family Law author has reviewed the Financial Agreements publication covering commentary, matter plan and precedents.

Commentary updates include the following additions:

  1. Child support agreements and financial agreements: Whilst a financial agreement may also be a binding child support agreement if it complies with the requirements in the child support legislation, it is recommended that child support ought to be provided for in a Binding Child Support Agreement or a Limited Child Support Agreement; and
  2. Enforcement procedure when a case has not been on foot: i.e. to seek a declaration as to the enforceability of the binding financial agreement under 90KA or 90UN, an initiating application would need to be filed, seeking both a declaration and the orders in relation to enforcement. The practical reality is in most applications seeking enforcement of a binding financial agreement, an initiating application is filed seeking both the declaration and enforcement orders at once.

The new requirements for affidavits in the Family Court has led to a new Exhibit page to Affidavit form being created by LEAP. This has been linked where necessary in the matter plan.

Letter submitting financial agreement to other side acting for themselves has been amended by adding the following paragraph:

The agreement cannot be signed without you obtaining independent legal advice and the solicitor needs to sign where indicated on the document to confirm you have been provided with this advice.

Connect with us