We are often called upon for advice in international cases: where the courts or the laws of more than one country are involved and may come into conflict. 

In a recent case called Lane & Lane the parties thought they had got the right result by fair means, one of the parties then believed they got the wrong result by unfair means, a trial judge decided they got the right result for the wrong reasons, and in the Full Court, two of three judges decided the judge got the right result for the wrong reasons.

There are two recent cases on child support that, for different reasons, have outcomes that seem harsh on the payer.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade tells us that at any one time there are about one million Australians living and working overseas. In 2014/15 overseas students, and business visa entrants to Australia, totalled just under 400,000. Where there are people, there is conflict. Where there is conflict, there is litigation. Family law is no exception.

Two recent cases show two different aspects of the court's power to grant injunctions.  An injunction is, usually, an order that somebody not do what they are otherwise entitled to do.  It can also be an order that somebody do something they are not otherwise obliged to do. 

Family Court cases sometimes take unusual forms and have unusual outcomes.  One of the problems that judges must deal with is where one of the parties, post separation, deals with cash or other property in a way so as to make it disappear.  For example by going on a spending spree.

In rugby league, if the referee makes a call, it can be reviewed by what they call the bunker.  In rugby, it is the third match official or TMO.  In cricket they have the third umpire. 

I wrote recently about two English decisions where husbands had misled their wives and the court, and the dramatic effect that this had on the court orders that were procured by the misleading information.

It seems obvious to say that if you want a divorce you must first prove that you have been married.  For most couples this is easy.

Here is some news that is not going to come as a shock.  Not everybody involved in disputes after relationship breakdown is honest in disclosing their financial positions.  

In a previous article on this site I wrote that it was perhaps time for the court to reconsider the way it looked at the financial consequences of family violence on marriage break up. In this article I want to look at the question of family violence from a different point of view.

In December last year a case called Welch and Abney (No 2) was decided. The "(No2)" does not mean that this is the second set of people with the same name who have been in the Family Court.

Last year the Family Court decided a case of Trask & Westlake. The interesting feature in this case is something that, we think, will become more frequent: the long period of time between the separation and the time the case came to trial.

Ms A was described as a "fabulously wealthy heiress". She married Mr A when they were both in their forties, neither of them worked in paid employment during their marriage, which broke down after 17 years, leaving four children, and a pile of money.

The stories told in some cases can invite a reader to take them lightly...until you realise that these are the stories of real people, and real suffering.

In December last year a judge of the Family Court dismissed an application before him in five short sentences. That is unusual in itself. My discussion of it will not be quite as brief.

The Federal Government has proposed some further changes to the Family Law Act. Some of these deal with family violence and the press release is timed to coincide with International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

The decisions in some cases under the Family Law Act do not raise new issues of principle or have significantly different facts but remind us of the correct approach that needs to be taken in similar cases.