My work experience week at Freedman and Gopalan was filled with laughs, learning and working. I had so much fun, from the moment I stepped through the glass doors I felt included, everyone was so welcoming and kind. I have enjoyed getting to know the whole team individually and will cherish these experiences forever.

This week has given me an incredible insight into the legal system and I have learnt so much in such a short time. I spent my week emailing clients, archiving old cases and writing articles for social media. I never felt scared or worried about asking for help, everyone was so helpful and easy to talk to and even when busy they all made time to have a laugh with each other. It was so great to be part of such a friendly and kind team.

I will forever be grateful for the time I spent here and the experience I have had it is truly priceless, and it has made me even more excited about pursuing a career in law.

Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom’s relationship has long been a subject of public fascination, marked by high-profile appearances and a shared child. Their recent split in mid-2025 reignited speculation about the role of infidelity may have played, particularly after Perry was seen kissing former Canadian Prime Minister Justn Trudeau just weeks after the breakup. While tabloids have swirled with rumors, including past allegations involving Bloom and Selena Gomez in 2016, neither Perry nor Bloom has publicly confirmed cheating as the cause of their separation.

From a legal standpoint, even if infidelity occurred, it would not entitle either party to compensation under Australian family law. Australia follows a no-fault divorce system, meaning courts do not consider the reasons for a relationship’s breakdown, such as cheating, when determining property division or spousal maintenance. The law focuses on equitable financial outcomes and the welfare of any children, rather than assigning moral blame.

There are limited exceptions, a prenuptial agreement may include clauses that penalise infidelity, but such provisions must be carefully drafted and are rarely enforced. Unlike some jurisdictions that once allowed “alienation of affection” lawsuits against third parties, Australia does not recognise such claims.

In the case of Perry and Bloom, their separation, however dramatic in the public eye, will likely be resolved through standard family law procedures without regard to personal grievances. The legal system prioritises fairness and practicality over emotional justice, even when celebrity relationships unravel under the spotlight

Not every courtroom drama happens inside the courtroom. Sometimes, it begins at the airport. Imagine standing in line at Sydney International, passport in hand, suitcase packed, and your phone starts buzzing in your pocket with reminders about an upcoming divorce hearing. Can you board that flight to France without derailing your case?

In Australia, there’s no automatic ban on overseas travel during divorce proceedings. But if your matter is active, especially when financial settlements or parenting arrangements are being contested, travel can become legally complicated. Court orders, undertakings and even the perception that you’re dodging responsibilities can all come into play.

For example, Sarah, who’s negotiating property division and spousal maintenance. She’s invited to a professional event in London. While the trip is legitimate, her ex-partner raises concerns about asst movement and delays. Sarah would be wise to notify her legal counsel and the court, provide clear itinerary and ensure she’s available for virtual hearings. Ignoring these steps could lad to adverse inferences or even contempt proceedings.

If children are involved, stakes rise sharply. International travel during custody disputes may require written consent from the other parent or a court order. Attempting to leave without permission could trigger airports to alerts under the Family Law Watchlist and result in serious legal consequences.

So, yes you can travel, but only with the court’s blessing. One wrong move and your relaxing holiday could turn into a legal headache for you and your legal team.

Pacific Current Group Ltd v Fitzpatrick (No 2) [2025] FCA 1152

Justice Beach dismissed Pacific Current Group Ltd’s (PAC) proceedings against its former CEO, Mr Andrew McGill, concerning alleged breaches of directors’ duties during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC. The merger involved transferring assets into a unit trust (Aurora Trust), with PAC holding 61% and Northern Lights 39%.

PAC alleged that Mr McGill and other directors breached statutory and equitable duties—particularly under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)—by failing to conduct proper due diligence, withholding key financial models, and not obtaining shareholder approval. PAC pursued a “no transaction” damages claim, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches.

Justice Beach found:

• Mr McGill breached s 180 by failing to disclose risks associated with WHV Investment Management Inc., including uncertainties around dividend entitlements and flawed financial modelling.
• However, PAC’s “no transaction” scenario failed. The evidence showed that the merger would likely have proceeded, albeit potentially on renegotiated terms.
•  PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” scenario, nor did it establish causation or quantifiable loss.
•  As no damages flowed from the proven breach, the Court dismissed the case against Mr McGill.
• Mr McGill’s cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Justice Beach emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness. He noted that PAC’s board, despite criticisms, demonstrated strong governance and intellectual diversity. The judgment also clarified that directors are not liable for hypothetical losses unless causation and damage are properly pleaded and proven.

PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.

Key Points – PAC v Fitzpatrick (No 2)

• Background: PAC sued its former CEO, Mr McGill, alleging breaches of directors’ duties under s 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) during a 2014 merger with Northern Lights Capital Partners LLC.
• WHV Issue: Mr McGill failed to disclose risks tied to WHV Investment Management Inc., including dividend uncertainties and flawed financial modelling. This breached his duty of care.
• Causation & Damages: PAC ran a “no transaction” case, arguing the merger would not have occurred but for the breaches. The Court rejected this, finding the merger would likely have proceeded—possibly with renegotiated terms.

• No Alternative Scenario: PAC did not plead or prove an “alternative transaction” case. Without causation or quantifiable loss, no damages were awarded.
• Outcome: The case against Mr McGill was dismissed. His cross-claim against Mr Fitzpatrick was also dismissed. PAC was ordered to pay 80% of Mr McGill’s costs, reflecting limited success on the WHV issue.
• Judicial Commentary: Justice Beach praised PAC’s board for its intellectual diversity and governance, and emphasised the importance of precise pleadings and procedural fairness.

Ekermawi v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 1141

Justice Perry summarily dismissed two proceedings brought by Mr Samir Ekermawi against Services Australia (SA) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), alleging racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) and international law.

Mr Ekermawi, a Palestinian-born Australian citizen, claimed that the Commonwealth’s refusal to allow “Palestine” to be recorded as his country of birth in official systems (Centrelink and passport databases) constituted unlawful racial discrimination and breached his human rights. He sought declarations, damages, and orders requiring the Commonwealth to insert “Palestine” into its systems.

The Court found:

• There is no human right to have a particular place of birth recorded in government records. The RDA does not confer such a right, nor does the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

• The evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could record “Palestine” in hard copy applications and that DFAT allowed options such as “Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “British Mandated Palestine” in its internal systems.
• The inability to select “Palestine” did not affect eligibility for social security or passport renewal. Citizenship, not birthplace, determines entitlement.
• Mr Ekermawi failed to identify any specific act that breached ss 9, 10, 17, or 18C of the RDA. His claims were vague, lacked legal foundation, and did not raise any substantial factual or legal dispute.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction, as recognition of foreign states is a matter for the Executive under Chapter II of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court held that the applications had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed them under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), with costs awarded to the Commonwealth.

Key Points

Mr Ekermawi alleged racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) after Services Australia and DFAT refused to record “Palestine” as his country of birth in official systems. He claimed this breached his human rights and caused marginalisation.

Justice Perry summarily dismissed the case, finding:

• No human right exists to have a specific birthplace recorded in government databases.
• The RDA does not guarantee such a right, nor does ICERD.
• Evidence showed Mr Ekermawi could write “Palestine” on hard copy forms and request internal codes like “British Mandated Palestine.”
• His eligibility for services or passports was unaffected by the birthplace listing.
• The relief sought—requiring recognition of Palestine—was non-justiciable and outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
• No actionable breach of ss 9, 10, 17 or 18C of the RDA was identified.

The Court held the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed both proceedings under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court Act, awarding costs to the Commonwealth.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

XKTK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 115 Appeal from: XKTK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 14

File number: NSD 206 of 2025 Judgment of: WHEELAHAN, STEWART AND NEEDHAM JJ

Date of judgment: 19 September 2025

The appellant, a Sri Lankan citizen holding a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV), had his visa cancelled by the Minister under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) following a conviction for a child sexual offence. Although the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had earlier revoked the cancellation, the Minister personally set aside that decision, citing national interest grounds.

The appellant challenged the Minister’s decision, arguing it was legally unreasonable, illogical, or irrational—particularly because he could not be removed from Australia due to non-refoulement/extradition obligations and would remain in the community.

The Full Court (Wheelahan, Stewart and Needham JJ) dismissed the appeal, holding:

• The Minister’s satisfaction that cancellation was in the national interest was a valid jurisdictional fact, even though removal was not practicable.
• The Minister provided intelligible justification: the seriousness of the offence, risk of reoffending (even if low), and community expectations that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should not hold visas.
• The Minister acknowledged the appellant would remain in the community and would likely be issued a Bridging Visa R (BVR) with conditions tailored to mitigate risk (e.g., curfews, monitoring, restrictions on contact with minors).
• The Court rejected the argument that cancellation lacked protective effect merely because removal was not imminent. The cancellation rendered the appellant liable to removal and subject to stricter visa conditions.
• The Minister’s reasoning did not offend logic or legal standards for administrative decision-making. The threshold for establishing jurisdictional error was not met.

The Court also distinguished the High Court’s recent decision in Plaintiff S22/2025, finding it did not undermine the Minister’s reasoning in this case.

Core Legal Principles

1. Ministerial Power under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act

• This provision allows the Minister to personally set aside a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to revoke a visa cancellation.
• Two jurisdictional facts must be satisfied:
  • The person does not pass the character test (e.g. conviction for child sexual offences under s 501(6)(e)).
  • Cancellation is in the national interest.

2. 2. Nature of the “National Interest”

The “national interest” is a broad and evaluative concept, largely political in nature.

It includes considerations such as:

• Protection of the Australian community.
• Community expectations regarding non-citizens who commit serious crimes.
• The symbolic and legal consequences of visa cancellation.

The Minister’s satisfaction must be formed reasonably and in accordance with legal standards, but courts give wide latitude to the Minister’s evaluative judgment.

3. Legal Unreasonableness and Jurisdictional Error

• A decision may be challenged if it is legally unreasonable, illogical, or irrational.
• However, the threshold is high: the reasoning must “completely offend logical thinking” or lack any intelligible justification.
• The Court found the Minister’s reasoning—emphasising community protection and expectations—even in the absence of actual removal, was intelligible and lawful.

4. Impact of Non-Refoulement/Extradition Obligations

• Due to protection findings, the appellant could not be removed to Sri Lanka.
• The Minister acknowledged this, but the Court held that cancellation still served a lawful purpose: rendering the person liable to removal and subject to stricter visa conditions (e.g. Bridging Visa R with curfews, monitoring, and restrictions).

5. Distinction from Plaintiff S22/2025

• The Court distinguished this case from Plaintiff S22, where the Minister’s reasoning lacked clarity on how cancellation protected the community.

In XKTK, the Minister clearly considered giving a visa with safety conditions, which made the decision understandable.

My work experience at F & G has been nothing but eye-opening in these past few days. Being quite indecisive surrounding what I wanted to pursue in the future, I first entered this workplace with many doubts as this would be the week that determined whether I would take Law in the future. On top of it all, I was exposed to the stereotype that lawyers are often stern and scary people – Cher’s dad from Clueless anyone?

However, I was taken by surprise when I entered the firm from the very first day. Everyone, especially Julia, Ankita and Ketharan, greeted me very warmly and was always approachable whenever I had a doubt about the tasks I was assigned. Furthermore, Mittu would constantly check in with me every now and then, making sure I was settling in well and was comfortable.

Throughout the week, I undertook several activities such as writing articles on topics that interested me, as well as creating scripts and social media posts to accompany them, scanning and destroying old files, sending client emails, and other small errands. Although they were only minor roles, they allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of what was necessary for the smooth handling of cases from start to finish.

On top of it all, I was lucky enough to hear client calls and look through certain matters from time to time on an online platform known as Smokeball, which proved to be extremely interesting and subsequently increased my interest in pursuing law in the future.

Overall, I believe that my work experience at F & G was highly valuable as it showed me how law could be put into practice in the real world. I am truly grateful to have been presented with this opportunity and would recommend anyone who’s looking to pursue law or even interested in legal matters to undertake their work experience here.

Siri (Work Experience Student – 15.9.25-19.9.25)

What Happened

• In July 2023, a lunch at Erin Patterson’s home in Victoria, turned deadly when guests were served Beef Wellington allegedly laced with death cap mushrooms, a known lethal fungus.
• Three people died, Patterson’s estranged in-laws.
• A fourth guest, Heather’s husband, survived after extensive hospitalisation.

The Trial

• Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.
• She pleaded not guilty, insisting the poisoning was a terrible accident, not intentional.
• The trial took place in Victoria, before the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Christopher Beale.
• The trial lasted for approximately 9 to 10 weeks.

Key Evidence & Contentions

• Prosecution accused Patterson of foraging or sourcing death cap mushrooms, drying them (evidence of a food dehydrator), and knowingly including them in the meal.
• Defence argued there was no intent to kill, being that the inclusion of the mushrooms was accidental, that she “panicked” after the deaths, and lied about a cancer diagnosis (allegedly to lure victims) and the dehydrator because she was overwhelmed.
• There were also issues about how she handled evidence and phone data, delays, and possible attempts to cover up.

Verdict & Sentence

• On 7 July 2025, the jury found Erin Patterson guilty of three murders and one attempted murder.
• On 8 September 2025, she was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years.

Legal & Public Interest Issues

• The case hinged heavily on proving intent, being whether Erin Patterson intentionally served death cap mushrooms or whether it was accidental. This involves examining her actions before, during, and after the lunch.
• The existence and disposal of a food dehydrator, claims about sourcing the mushrooms, and inconsistencies in her testimony played major roles.
• The effect on family, the relationship strain with her estranged husband, and statements from her children were part of the narrative, both for prosecution and defence.

The processes of separation and divorce can often be touch emotionally, with  nowadays a lot of our lives being documented online. From Instagram stories and Facebook status updates to TikTok videos and direct messages, what you upload onto the internet has the potential to be admissible in court.

In Australia, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) obliges courts to take into account all the available evidence when making a decision regarding property settlement, parenting and spousal maintenance. That goes for social media post as well.

So Can Social Media be Evidence?

Yes. Courts throughout Australia have received and accepted social media posts, photos, and messages as evidence in family law proceedings. Examples include:

• Posts on reckless expenditure or gambling, applicable in property disputes.
• Images or posts proving drug or alcohol abuse, relevant in parenting cases.
• Intimidatory messages/posts are used to demonstrate family violence or intimidation.

Even things you believe or perceive as “private” may be screenshotted, subpoenaed, or posted if they are relevant to the case.

Common Issues that are Raised Online

• Badmouthing and ex-partner online: This can be raised as evidence of hostility, particularly in parenting disputes.
• Deleting accounts or posts – these practices can be perceived as attempt to hide evidence.
• Sharing Children’s photo’s or details publicly: Such incidences can raise questions about judgement or safeguarding.

Practical Tips

• Think before you post: Assume anything you share on the internet has the ability to show up in front of a judge due to the public nature of the internet.
• Avoid discussing a Case online: Never post about any ongoing proceedings.
• Get Legal Advice: If your concerned about posts made by yourself or your ex-partner, make sure you seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Conclusion

Australian Family Law has the ability to take into account social media in proceedings. This could be a challenging ordeal for many. So if you have any legal enquiries on this topic don’t be afraid to contact us.