ByLawyers News and Updates

New family law court – FED

by

The new family law court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), commences 1 September 2021.

The FCFCOA will have 2 divisions. Essentially Division 1 replaces the existing Family Court and Division 2 replaces the existing family law functions of the Federal Circuit Court. There will be a single point of entry to the new family law court through Division 2.

Summary of the changes

  • There will be harmonised rules, new practice directions, updated forms and one website.
  • The new court’s website will be launched on 1 September 2021 with simplified access and navigation.
  • All forms will be updated. An Application in a Case will become an Application in a Proceeding.
  • Transitional arrangements will allow for the use of new forms, with a 90 day grace period for old forms.
  • Existing matters will generally remain in the existing courts, unless the parties are advised otherwise.
  • Division 2 will have a general federal law jurisdiction similar to that of the Federal Circuit Court currently.
  • Division 1 will have jurisdiction to hear family law appeals and there will be a single national appeals filing registry.
  • A National Contravention List will be introduced and a practice direction will accompany the commencement of the list.
  • The new court will have Senior Judicial Registrars, Judicial Registrars, and Deputy Registrars. While the titles change, their powers and roles will be the same as existing Registrars.
  • Child Disputes Services will be known as the Court Children’s Service. Family Consultants will be known as Court Child Experts.
  • Parties in children’s matters will receive assistance earlier, with a greater emphasis on expert guidance.

Updates for the FCFCOA commencement on 1 September 2021

All By Lawyers Family law guides – Children, Divorce, Financial Agreements, and Property Settlement – will be updated to reflect the commencement of the new court. This will include a full review of the:

  • commentaries for the new procedures and rules;
  • matter plans with a single Going to court section reflecting the new process;
  • forms – with all new forms on the matter plans; and
  • precedents, to incorporate the changes where necessary.

By Lawyers always keep our content – and our subscribers – up to date!

The Lighthouse Project – FED

by

The Lighthouse Project is a new family-violence and risk screening initiative that will run in both the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court for parenting matters. The legislative framework is provided by the recent Family Law Amendment (Risk Screening Protections) Act 2020.

The project will be initially available in the Adelaide, Brisbane and Parramatta registries of the courts. It is scheduled to commence before the end of 2020.

The Lighthouse Project includes:

  • early risk screening through a secure online platform;
  • early identification and management of safety concerns; and
  • assessment and triage of cases by a specialised team, who will provide resources and safe and suitable case management.

All cases identified as high-risk following the screening process will be referred to a dedicated list in the court. The specialist list will be known as the Evatt List. This will be a judge-managed list which will focus on early information gathering and intervention through a judge-led, dedicated support team in appropriate cases.

Both courts have a dedicated page on their websites with information about the Lighthouse Project.

The By Lawyers Family Law Children publication has been updated accordingly. Information on The Lighthouse Project has been included under Pre-Action procedures in the full commentary and on the matter plan. Practitioners are also reminded of the related information on family violence and cross-examination of parties, in the Going to court folders.

Notice of risk – FED

by

A new Notice of risk form has been released for use in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court.

The new form is called ‘Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk’. It harmonises the approach taken to risk notification in parenting matters. It is intended to assist in ensuring that families receive appropriate and targeted intervention within the family law system.

The new form replaces and consolidates the three previously prescribed forms, being:

  • Notice of Risk,
  • Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence (Current Case), and
  • Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence (Application for Consent Orders).

The new form must be completed by all parties filing an Initiating Application, Response or Application for Consent Orders where a parenting order is sought from 31 October 2020.

Applications that are part completed but have not yet been lodged for filing on the Commonwealth Courts Portal by 31 October 2020 will also need to have the new form completed.

If an allegation of child abuse or family violence, or risk of same, is made in the Notice then an affidavit must be filed setting out the evidence on which the allegation is based. In the Federal Circuit Court, this may be done within the affidavit filed with the Initiating Application or Response.

The Notice must be served on all other parties and any other relevant person as outlined in the form. The Notice of Risk should be eFiled where possible using the Commonwealth Courts Portal.

The new form enables a Judge or Registrar to consider multiple risk issues in addition to child abuse or family violence, at an earlier stage in proceedings. Multiple risk issues include mental health, substance abuse and threats of harm. The Notice will be referred to the relevant child welfare agency where appropriate.

This form is available on the matter plan of the By Lawyers Family Law – Children publication. The commentary has been updated to include some practical information on the use of the form.

Insolvency – Bankruptcy of individuals – FED

by

Author review

A full review of the By Lawyers Insolvency – Bankruptcy of Individuals guide has been conducted. The review ensures that all content is in line with current law and practice.

This review was conducted by our highly experienced author, Michael Murray.

Updates and enhancements include:

  • New commentary on recent law changes to debt agreements;
  • New commentary on the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court processes for creditor’s petitions, applications to set aside bankruptcy notices and examinations; and
  • New commentary and matter plan additions because of new online processes for voluntary bankruptcy.

Keep up to date with By Lawyers

This review of our Insolvency – Bankruptcy of Individuals guide is part of By Lawyers commitment to regular updating and enhancement of our publications. By Lawyers always keeps you up to date so you can enjoy practice more.

Legal professional privilege – FED

by

Legal professional privilege can be a complex area. But it can also be a very important area for practitioners and their clients. Fast, accurate answers to difficult questions about legal professional privilege can be extremely valuable. By Lawyers provides substantial commentary, cases and legislation on legal professional privilege in both Practice Management and 101 Subpoena Answers publications.

Evidence Act or common law?

A critical consideration when dealing with legal professional privilege is whether the uniform evidence law or the common law applies. Generally, in state courts the applicable state Evidence Act applies in all situations. However in federal jurisdictions, the Commonwealth Evidence Act applies at trial, but the common law applies in interlocutory proceedings.

The recent case of Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v MLC Life Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1322 dealt with legal professional privilege in a federal jurisdiction. The matter involved an objection taken to the production of documents under subpoena. The objection was on the basis of legal professional privilege, and specifically litigation privilege.

Being an interlocutory application Griffiths J applied (at [12]) the common law test where ‘litigation privilege attaches to confidential communications between a legal advisor or client and a third party if made for the dominant purpose of use in, or in relation to, litigation which is then on foot or is reasonably anticipated’.

Evidence

The court held that whomever claims privilege bears the onus of establishing the basis for the claim. That party is required to adduce admissible direct evidence to demonstrate that the claim is properly made. This means revealing the relevant characteristics of each document that will allow the court to uphold a claim for privilege. Simply tendering the relevant document and asking the court to test for privilege will not be sufficient. This affirms Brereton J’s decision in Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12 that the court’s power to inspect a document is not to facilitate the requisite proof, but to scrutinise and test the claim.

This is an important point for practitioners instructed to make such a claim. Detailed evidence must be filed as to the reason for and circumstances of the creation of the documents, including how confidentiality was maintained. The deponent of the affidavit may be cross-examined. For this reason the solicitor with carriage of the matter should think very hard before being the one to swear such an affidavit.

‘Reasonably anticipated’

Griffiths J also affirmed that, for the privilege to apply, the litigation must be reasonably anticipated, not simply a mere possibility. This does not mean more likely than not. It is to be determined objectively.

More information

See the By Lawyers Practice Management guide, or the 101 Subpoena Answers publication in the Reference materials folder of every By Lawyers litigation guide, for more detail about this case and more information on legal professional privilege generally.

Amendments to Family Law Act – FED

by

Amendments to the Family Law Act commenced 10 March 2019 relating to family violence and cross-examination of parties.

They will apply to cross-examinations occurring on 10 September 2019 and thereafter, regardless of when proceedings were instituted.

The following sections have been added to the Family Law Act 1975:

  • 102NA Mandatory protections for parties in certain cases; and
  • 102NB Court‑ordered protections in other cases.

Section 102NA provides greater protection for parties in circumstances of family violence where there are self-represented parties.

If a party intends to cross-examine the other party, in certain circumstances, they may not do so personally and cross-examination may only be conducted by a legal representative. Those circumstances are:

  1. there is an allegation of family violence between the examining party and the witness party; and
  2. any of the following are satisfied:
    • either party has been convicted of, or is charged with, an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party;
    • a family violence order, other than an interim order, applies to both parties;
    • an injunction under s 68B or s 114 for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party;
    • the court makes an order that the requirements of legal representation for cross-examination are to apply.

If a party intends to cross-examine the other party personally and there are allegations of family violence, the court must ensure that during the cross-examination there are appropriate protections for the party who is the alleged victim of the family violence.

The By Lawyers Children and Property Settlement commentaries have been updated accordingly.

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 – 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:

 

Connect with us