ByLawyers News and Updates

101 Family Law Answers – FED

by

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.

Leases – Demolition and relocation clause – Commercial lease

by

A new demolition and relocation clause for use in commercial leases has been added to the Library of clauses in all By Lawyers Leases publications. This clause was added as a result of a request from a By Lawyers user.

The new clause provides for termination by either the lessor or lessee in the event that the lessor proposes to demolish the building or a substantial portion of the building of which the premises form part, on the lessor providing 90 days written notice to the lessee. This clause also addresses the costs of relocation of the lessee’s business and requires the proposal for demolition to be genuine.

Please email us at askus@bylawyers.com.au or call 02 4858 0619 with any feedback or suggestions. We would love to hear from you!

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’.

Connect with us