ByLawyers News and Updates

Family Law updates – FED

by

Family Law updates are included in the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018, which provides for amendments to numerous statutes, including the Family Law Act 1975 and the Marriage Act 1961.

These updates have been incorporated in the commentaries for Property Settlement and Divorce in the By Lawyers Family Law Guide.

Final property division orders being made out of time by consent – de facto couples

Section 44(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 now provides that de facto couples may consent to final property division orders being made out of time, without the necessity for a judge to grant leave. This means that de facto couples who reach agreement to a property division more than two years after separation can now have orders made using the Application for Consent Order process. This will be done by including an order that they consent to the making of orders out of time, rather than having to issue proceedings to seek the leave of the court.

Renumbering Superannuation Interests sections in the Family Law Act

Effective 22 November 2018 Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act, being the Superannuation Interests sections, will be re-numbered in a more logical sequence. Section 90MA will become s 90XA and so on down to s 90MZH being replaced by s 90XZH.

 

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.

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.

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.

Reference Manual – 101 Family Law Answers – additional commentary

by

Stamp duty and other charges

Whilst stamp duty is the common duty parties seek an exemption from, s 90(1) does not only provide an exemption from stamp duty. It provides that certain agreements/orders are not subject to any duty or charge under any law of a State or Territory. This may include land titles office fees on a discharge of mortgage, withdrawal of caveat and/or registration of mortgage.

Practitioners need to be mindful when drafting orders to ensure their orders specify what is required: for example, whether a refinance is required, or whether a withdrawal of caveat is provided.

Family Law – Property Settlement publication review

by

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

Commentary updates include the following additions:

  1. Evidentiary issues with spousal maintenance – the best evidence for the effect of health issues on the earning capacity of the applicant is usually that of a medical practitioner; and regarding the attempts made by the applicant to secure paid employment, if acting for the respondent, evidence from a recruitment expert as to the applicant’s employability and likely salary may be useful;
  2. It is best practice to advise clients, even in consent matters, to provide and request disclosure of at least the basic documents. If they do not want to do so, advising them of the risks for an agreement or orders to be set aside on the basis of non disclosure is recommended;
  3. Consent orders and the registrar seeking further clarification – a requisition may be avoided by providing a covering letter or statement of agreed facts along with the documents to be filed, explaining the orders and background which gives rise to what otherwise may appear unjust;
  4. Federal Circuit Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 providing strict directions for affidavits in interim matters;
  5. Section 79(9) and s 90SM(9) of the Family Law Act provides that the court shall not make an order in a property settlement proceedings, other than an interim order or a consent order, unless the parties have attended a conference with a Registrar or Deputy Registrar, i.e. a conciliation conference. If the matter is urgent or there is another special circumstance, the court may make an order notwithstanding parties have not attended a conference; and
  6. If a party seeks to amend their application or response refer to Federal Circuit Rule 7.01 and Family Law Rule 11.10.

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.

There were only minor amendments to several letters regarding use of the term “initiating applications” as opposed to “application for final orders”.

 

Connect with us