While the name and structure of our firm have evolved, what remains unchanged is the team our clients know and trust. The same friendly faces are here, continuing to provide the personalised, professional service that has always been at the heart of what we do.

The merger brings together the strengths, experience and expertise of both firms, allowing us to offer a broader range of legal services and deeper support across all practice areas. By combining our resources, we are better positioned to meet the growing and diverse needs of our clients, while maintaining the approachable and responsive service we are known for.

For our clients, it means more support and more capability, all delivered by the same trusted team.

We are proud of this step forward and look forward to continuing to assist our clients with the same dedication, now backed by an even stronger team.

If you have any questions about the merger or how we can assist you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Source: Supreme Court of NSW Facebook page

Judgment: SSABR Pty Ltd v AMA Group Limited [2024] NSWCA 175
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by SSABR Pty Ltd and HAAPRC Pty Ltd (“appellants”) against a decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court rectifying cl 5.1 of a Business Sale Agreement (“BSA”) entered into by the appellants and AMA Group Limited and AMA Group Solutions Pty Ltd (“AMA”). The Court held that AMA had not shown, by clear and convincing proof, that the parties to the BSA had the common intention that cl 5.1 should provide for an earn-out amount to be calculated by reference to “average annual” Earnings Before Interest and Tax (“EBIT”), rather than EBIT, over the Earn-Out Period.

Read the judgment here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/190d7c98cea5218c9c0ac607
Summary: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/asset/190dd3d68543cffb60ff2246.pdf

The evidence presented to the Committee highlighted a family law system that faces significant challenges, including in relation to costs to parties, legal assistance, addressing family violence and placing the best interests of children at its centre. The Government is committed to restoring the family law system so that it is accessible, safer, simpler to use, and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian Families.

Practitioners are already moving through the various changes which have been introduced at various times since the inquiry began.

Notably, significant changes were implemented in September 2021 as the two Court’s predominantly responsible for determining Family Law matters, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, were merged in to one Court, which has streamlined processes overall. The implementation of the new Rules (the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021) as well as various practice directions, have assisted practitioners since this time in navigating the system with their clients as quickly and inexpensively as possible, providing an overall rubric for how matters should be conducted.

From 28 November 2022, the Lighthouse project extended to become an ongoing program in 15 major Family law registries to manage cases where significant risk was involved and from the earliest opportunity, and on 30 October 2023 the Priority Property Pool Cases list expanded nationally to all filing registries to provide a case pathway for low asset matters with the aim to best preserve the parties assets.

Now, in 2024 the Government is set to implement further significant changes to the Family Law Act 1975. As of 6 May 2024, major changes will take effect with such changes to include how the Court are required to determine parenting disputes. Key changes will include:

1. Changes to how the Court are to determine the “best interests of the Child”, including abandoning the previous “hierarchy” of considerations and identifying six key categories of considerations for the Court;
2. The removal of current pathways which require the Court to consider equal time and shared parental responsibility, including removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility;
3. The adoption of previous case law principles surrounding changes to Final Parenting Orders;
4. Clarification of the consequences of non-compliance with Parenting Orders;
5. Changes to delegated powers to Registrars in relation to ‘make-up’ time orders;
6. Clarifications of definitions including in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families;
7. Requirements for Independent Children’s Lawyers to meet with children and provide them with opportunities to express views, subject to certain exceptions;
8. The establishment of a criminal offence as to disclosing the identify of any person connected to a Family Law proceeding.

Overall, the changes set to take affect dramatically change what parents need to know about how their matter will be decided by a Court, with the additional effect being that practitioners who advise clients from 6 May 2024 onwards will not have a substantial body of law to draw from in regards to the interpretation of the legislation. While the overarching purpose of the system remains the same, it appears practitioners in this area are officially entering new ground.

Don’t get left behind. If you need help understanding how these changes may affect you, call and book an appointment with our Family Lawyer.

Things can get complicated when these third parties commence proceedings in state or federal courts, especially when you are trying to navigate your Family Law matter in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. It can be hard to know what to do in your Family Law matter when you also have uncertainty from a case in another Court that affects your entitlements in the Family Court. The Court’s different timetables can also cause an issue as you may feel that one matter needs to be determined to help determine the other matter.

When a matter is being litigated in one Court which is directly relevant to a matter in another Court (such as proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking enforcement of a debt and payment by way of sale of the family home), then one of those Courts may need to transfer their proceedings to the other Court in order to have the various issues litigated together. This process is known as cross-vesting, and is made possible by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) also contains provisions in section 46 which require courts of summary jurisdiction to transfer proceedings in relation to property of a total value exceeding $20,000.00, and where the orders sought are in dispute, to the Federal Circuit and Family Court or another court listed in that section, unless both parties agree to the dispute being heard in the summary court. The summary court can still transfer the proceedings of its own motion, notwithstanding that the parties would be willing for the Court to hear and determine the proceedings.

This cross-vesting between courts and cross over of jurisdiction can be complicated, because you may need to consider which court is more appropriate to hear both matters simultaneously. Sometimes cross-vesting is not the answer, or even a possibility, such as where a Court finds that the relevant criteria under the legislation are not met and declines to transfer proceedings to be heard together. So are there ways to protect your interests while you navigate your Family Law property matter?

In the case of Pratten & McPherson [2016] Austin J made an anti-suit injunction order restraining the Second Respondent in that matter, the Respondent Husband’s Mother, from taking any further steps to prosecute her claim for relief in Supreme Court proceedings initiated by her in relation to a parcel of land owned jointly by her and the Applicant Wife. The Second Respondent sought that the whole of the proceedings before the then Family Court of Australia be transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987. The Judge discussed the need for the focus of attention to be on which of the courts would be the “more appropriate” forum, or alternatively, for it to “otherwise be in the interests of justice” that the matrimonial proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court. The Judge found that the Family Court was the more appropriate Court to deal with the dispute, and felt the “justifiable and safest course” was to grant the anti-suit injunction (in essence, a restraint on the mother from further litigating her claim in the Supreme Court). The Judge confirmed the Court’s power to grant such a remedy arising from cases such as Cole & Abati [2016] and Teo & Guan [2015].

The case of Pratten & McPherson [2016] was cited in a further case, Janda & Janda (No 2) [2022], and similar anti-suit injunction orders were made in that case to restrain the continuation of Supreme Court proceedings by a third party to that matter. In this matter, the Court acknowledged at [22], “it is a serious step to injunct a party from continuing litigation. All the more so where that person is a stranger to the marriage. It is a step which will only be taken where the Court can be satisfied that all the matters in s90AF of the Act have been appropriately addressed.”

CBD Law can advise you of your rights in relation to your Family Law property settlement, and how these may be impacted by the rights of third party creditors. We can help you at every step of the process, including initial discussions and disclosure, representation in Court proceedings, and formalising property settlements, including property settlements that require notice or participation of third parties.

This new Court means a new system of case management, one set of documents for use in Family Law matters and one set of Court Rules. There will no longer be “Federal Circuit Court Judges” and “Family Court Judges”, although matters will continue to be divided in to one of two divisions, based on the complexity of the matter.

Any current cases will remain before the docket Judge in which it was originally assigned, and any changes which may affect your matter should explained to you. Possibly the most noticeable change you will find is the change to case management, which will hopefully result in less interim appearances and a stricter oversight of compliance with orders and disclosure. That’s the desired outcome at any rate.

The new Court website has been launched, so if you do wish to do your own research, please click the following link: https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/about

Parents may choose to relocate for a number of reasons: they may be fleeing from domestic violence, moving to pursue better work opportunities, or moving to be closer to family, friends and other support networks. While parents do not need to show compelling reasons to relocate, applications for relocation create significant challenges for the Court, in that, where the relocation is opposed, the Court must then determine where the child shall live: with the relocating parent, or with the remaining parent? As with any other parenting dispute which comes before it, the Court must make decisions for the child based on what is in their best interests.

The recent decision of Babock & Waddell [2018] FamCA 276, is a recent case where the Court has had to consider an application for the interstate relocation of the subject child. In this matter, the Mother, Ms Waddell, sought orders that she be permitted to relocate the subject child’s residence to Perth. Arguing that the relocation would impact upon his meaningful relationship with the child, the Father, Mr Babock, opposed the relocation, and sought that the Mother and child remain living in Sydney. The Trial Judge confirmed the current position of the law, noting that, “parenting proceedings involving relocation are to be determined in the same manner in which all parenting proceedings are determined. That is, by following the legislative framework set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act) with a view to determining what orders, if any, are in the best interests of the children.”

Upon comprehensively considering each of the matters set out in s60CC of the Act, and both parties competing proposals, the Trial Judge made orders allowing the relocation of the child. In coming to his decision, the Trial Judge considered the application of the Act in relation to parental responsibility and the subsequent need to consider making orders for equal or substantial and significant time, the benefit of relocation on the mother’s mental health and how this would impact the child, the nature of the child’s relationship with each parent and others, the nature of the parents relationships with each other, the practical difficulties of the child spending time with each parent, the child’s wishes, each parents capacity to meet the needs of the child, and issues of domestic violence. While the Trial Judge recognised that the child may initially suffer a period of distress at being separated from the Father, the paternal extended family, and her Sydney based friends, he considered the relocation to be in the child’s best interests when looking at the medium to long-term benefits it would have for the child. The orders for the relocation of the child were upheld upon appeal by the Full Court of the Family Court in Sydney: Babock & Waddell [2019] FamCAFC 129. This case provides just one example of a matter where relocation was seen to be the more preferable option for the child.

Determining whether a parent should be able to relocate a child’s primary residence, either interstate or internationally, is often a complex matter which requires consideration of a number of factors. The above case example makes this clear. If you are going through a separation, and are struggling to determine living arrangements for your child, come and see our Family Law team for advice on your options and obligations.

In Small v Phillips (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 268 The Supreme Court released the following judgement: “The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by the grandson of a woman lacking testamentary capacity, and has granted leave for an order to be made under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) for a Will to be made on her behalf. The Court found that a draft Will which had been prepared prior to her loss of capacity was, or was reasonably likely to be, a Will that would have been made and finalised by the grandmother if she had testamentary capacity at the time the draft Will was ready for signing and that it was appropriate for an order authorising such a Will to be made.” Unfortunately, it has taken the estate beneficiaries a great deal of effort and expense to get the Grandmother’s draft will upheld when a quick visit to her lawyer and a nominal fee would have legitimised her will.

If you haven’t made your will yet, call CBD Law today to make an appointment.

Originally Mr Yin was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The offence involved the unlawful importation from Taiwan of 41kg of methamphetamine of which 33kg was pure methamphetamine. The sentencing judge found that the applicant committed his offence with 2 co-offenders, Mr Huang and Mr Lu. The co-offenders pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of methamphetamine & were each sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years, with a non-parole period of 6 years. The sentencing judge assessed the applicant’s role as “more responsible” than that of the co-offenders. From the evidence it appeared Mr Yin played a more senior role with some level of authority over the co-offenders in relation to obtaining possession of the drugs in Australia.

Mr Yin sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the following grounds:

1. whether the sentencing judge erred in her assessment of the comparative objective seriousness of the applicant’s offending and that of the 2 co-offenders.

The Court found that the sentencing judge did not err in concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant played a more serious role in the offence than his co-offenders. The Court found that his offence was thus more serious.

2. whether the disparity between the sentence imposed on the applicant and the sentences imposed on the two co-offenders gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the applicant.

The Court found that the disparity did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the applicant, as the disparity in the sentence was justified by the difference in the role played by the applicant and that of his co-offenders, and the acceptance that the subjective circumstances were similar.

The Appeal relates back to the shooting of a civilian employee with the NSW Police Force back in October of 2015. Mr Alou was 18 at the time and will be spending the next 40 or so years in prison for his crimes.

The full summary can be found here: www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d8c5b22e4b0c3247d71208b

Alou v R [2019] NSWCCA 231