In this family law matter, the Full Court dismissed a mother’s appeal against temporary (interlocutory) parenting orders. These orders changed the living arrangements for a four-year-old child, moving the child’s residence from the mother to the father, and giving the father sole authority to make long-term decisions for the child. The mother’s appeal was ultimately dismissed after she failed to attend the appeal hearing, following the Court’s refusal to allow her to appear electronically at the last minute.

This case is a useful example for anyone involved in family law proceedings, as it highlights the importance of following court procedures, respecting deadlines, and understanding what procedural fairness really means in practice.

This decision is a clear illustration of how strictly courts manage appeals, particularly in family law. The Court refused to accept a bundle of documents the mother tried to file on the morning of the hearing, including new appeal materials and an affidavit, because they were submitted far too late. The Court stressed that both the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer had a right to know in advance what case they would need to respond to, and to have a fair chance to be heard.

The Court’s approach in this case sends a strong message: parties cannot expect to change their case or introduce new evidence at the last minute without a very good reason. The rules and timetables set by the Court are there to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to prepare and respond.

Adjournments and Late Applications

At the first hearing, the mother asked for the matter to be postponed (an adjournment) on medical grounds. The judge refused, noting that she was able to make lengthy and articulate oral submissions, which suggested she was capable of continuing with the case. This shows that the Court will look closely at the reasons given for an adjournment and will not grant one unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it is necessary.

On appeal, the mother asked to attend the hearing by phone or video (to appear electronically), but she made this request only shortly before the hearing. The Court refused because the request was made too late, not following the rules that such applications must be made well in advance. The reasons given were not convincing and relied on outdated medical evidence. The other parties were not properly informed about her request.

The Court’s refusal to grant these requests highlights the importance of planning ahead and communicating clearly with the Court and all other parties involved.

Procedural Fairness

The Court made it clear that procedural fairness is not just about accommodating someone who is late or struggling with the rules. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer also had a right to know what arguments and evidence they would face, and to have time to respond. Even though the Court considered the mother’s late request privately (in chambers), it decided that allowing her to add new material at the last minute would be unfair to the others.

Importantly, the Court also pointed out that, even if the mother had followed the rules, her appeal did not have a strong chance of success. This means the dismissal was not just because of missed deadlines or procedural mistakes, but also because the appeal itself lacked substance.

Procedural fairness is about ensuring that all parties have a fair chance to present their case and respond to the other side. It is not about giving special treatment to someone who has not followed the rules, especially if it would disadvantage others.

 

 

Family law disputes often arise during some of the most stressful periods of a person’s life. Issues relating to divorce, child custody, family violence matters and property settlements can trigger or worsen mental health challenges. Stress caused by these factors can be worsened by the intimidating nature of legal procedures, and thus it is extremely important to consider mental health matters in Family Law. Consequently, lawyers increasingly need to employ traumatically informed approaches to client care.

This form of client support approach includes:

Given the importance of including such steps when supporting legal clients through mental health issues, increased training and flexibility for legal professionals regarding how to deal with such issues may yield positive outcomes for clients.

Further, it is important for solicitors to note that in most cases, mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder are manageable through treatment programs, consultations with doctors, taking medications and other interventions. At this stage, such challenges will not significantly influence the outcomes of family court decisions, such as in relation to child custody and parenting orders. It is only when such issues approach an unmanageable and high level that they may adversely influence legal outcomes such as limiting parenting rights.

When parents separate, a proposed move to a new town, interstate, or overseas can
quickly become a legal flashpoint, particularly where the move affects the other
parent’s time with the children. In Australia, there is no separate “relocation order” in
the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Instead, relocation disputes are determined under the
same principles that govern parenting matters, with the child’s best interests as the
paramount consideration.

When consent is needed
If parenting arrangements are informal, a parent may believe they can simply move. In
practice, relocation that makes it difficult or impossible for the other parent to spend
time with the child often leads to urgent court applications. If there are existing
parenting orders, moving in a way that undermines those orders may expose a parent to
contravention proceedings. Even where orders are silent about travel or residence, a
significant move can still trigger a dispute requiring legal resolution.

How courts approach relocation
Courts do not “grant permission” to relocate in the abstract; they assess which
parenting orders best promote the child’s best interests considering the proposed
move. Relocation cases often come down to competing proposals: one parent’s plan to move
with the child versus the other parent’s proposal that the child remain living nearby.

Practical steps for parents
Before relocating, parents should try to agree on a written parenting plan or seek
consent orders. A clear proposal could cover schooling, housing, childcare, support
networks, travel arrangements, and practical phone/video contact. If you cannot reach
agreement, get legal advice early especially if timeframes make the matter urgent.

Key takeaway
Relocation disputes are rarely simple, and outcomes are highly fact specific. Parents
who plan, focus on the child’s needs, and present workable arrangements for ongoing
time with the other parent place themselves in the best position to resolve the dispute—
by agreement where possible, or through court orders where necessary.

Why They Matter and What Happens If You Don’t Comply

Disclosure obligations are a cornerstone of family law proceedings in Australia. Whether you are negotiating a property settlement, seeking spousal maintenance, or resolving parenting arrangements, the law requires all parties to be open and transparent about their circumstances.

In family law, “disclosure” refers to the duty of each party to provide full and frank information relevant to the issues in dispute. This obligation is not limited to financial matters but extends to any information that could affect the outcome of the case. The duty is ongoing and continues until the matter is finalised.

The duty of disclosure is set out in the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), with Rule 6.06 being particularly important. Rule 6.06 requires each party to a financial case to provide to the other party all information relevant to an issue in the case, in a timely manner. This includes, but is not limited to, documents about income, expenses, assets, liabilities, and any other financial resources.

The obligation is not just to disclose documents that are requested, but to proactively provide all relevant information, even if it is not specifically asked for. The Rules make it clear that parties must not withhold information that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Why Is Disclosure Required?

The purpose of disclosure is to ensure that all parties, and the court, have a complete and accurate understanding of the relevant facts. This is essential for:

Without full and frank disclosure, the court cannot properly assess the circumstances of the parties, and there is a risk that one party may be unfairly disadvantaged.

 

For Financial Matters:

For Parenting Matters:

Other Relevant Information:

 It is important to understand that disclosure is not a one-off event. The obligation continues throughout the proceedings. If your financial situation changes, or if you discover new information, you must disclose this to the other party and the court as soon as possible.

Consequences of Failing to Comply

Failing to comply with your disclosure obligations is a serious breach of the law. The consequences can include:

 Full and frank disclosure is not just a procedural requirement, it is a legal obligation under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), especially Rule 6.06. Complying with your disclosure duties ensures fairness, transparency, and efficiency in family law proceedings. Failing to do so can have serious and lasting consequences for your case. If in doubt, seek legal advice early and be proactive in meeting your obligations.

Each year on International Women’s Day, the world pauses to recognise the achievements, resilience and influence of women across every part of society. It is a day that honours progress while also reminding us that the work of building a fair and equitable world is ongoing.

In 2026, women continue to shape our communities in powerful ways. They lead businesses, contribute to the justice system, educate future generations and support families. At the same time, many women carry significant responsibilities within their homes and communities, balancing professional ambitions with caregiving, advocacy and leadership within their families.

Women remain at the centre of family life. They are mothers, daughters, partners, professionals and caregivers. Often, they are the emotional and organisational foundation of families, guiding children, supporting loved ones and sustaining the relationships that keep families strong.

Yet when families face challenges, whether through separation, financial stress or parenting disputes, women frequently find themselves navigating complex legal systems to protect their rights and the wellbeing of their children.

For many women, engaging with the legal system occurs during one of the most emotionally difficult periods of their lives. Separation can involve uncertainty, financial concerns and the responsibility of ensuring that children remain safe and supported. In these moments, access to clear legal advice and strong representation can be transformative.

Family lawyers play an important role not only in interpreting legislation but also in guiding individuals through deeply personal circumstances. Their work often involves balancing legal strategy with compassion and understanding, helping clients move forward with confidence and stability.

 

Women Leading in the Legal Profession

International Women’s Day is also an opportunity to recognise the many women within the legal profession who work tirelessly to support families, advocate for fairness and uphold the rule of law. At Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors, women play an integral role in shaping the firm’s commitment to thoughtful and compassionate legal practice.

The firm is proud to be led by its Director, Mittu Gopalan, whose leadership reflects dedication, integrity and a deep commitment to supporting clients through complex family law matters. As Director, Mittu has helped build a practice grounded in professionalism and empathy, ensuring that clients feel supported while navigating difficult transitions in their lives.

Alongside her is the firm’s Senior Solicitor, Zohal Osoly, whose experience and commitment to client advocacy make a significant impact on the families the firm assists. Zohal approaches each matter with a balance of legal precision and genuine care, recognising that behind every file is a person seeking clarity, security and a path forward.

Together, their leadership highlights the important role women play in the legal profession—not only as practitioners, but as mentors, advocates and leaders shaping the future of legal practice.

 

A Day of Reflection and Appreciation

International Women’s Day is a moment to celebrate the achievements of women across every profession and every community. It is also a reminder of the strength, resilience and compassion that women bring to the roles they occupy each day.

From raising families and supporting communities to advocating for justice and leading organisations, women continue to shape the world in meaningful ways.

On this International Women’s Day, we acknowledge the women who hold families together, the women who lead with integrity, the support staff who provide care and dedication behind the scenes, and the women who work every day to ensure that justice, fairness and opportunity remain accessible to all.

Cross-border family law disputes are increasingly common in our globalised world, particularly between Australia and India. The recent decision of the Delhi Family Court in Shikhar Dhawan v Aesha Dhawan provides valuable insight into how Indian courts approach parallel matrimonial litigation when foreign proceedings, such as those in Australia, which have already taken place.

 

The Dhawan Decision Dhawan Case Judgement

The Delhi Family Court considered the outcome of Australian proceedings, which had culminated on 2 February 2024 with a final property division under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Australian orders were as follows:

Despite the finality of these orders in Australia, the Indian court refused to recognise or enforce them. The court found that:

On this basis, the Delhi court issued an anti-enforcement injunction and ordered restitution of the interim Australian distributions with 9% per annum interest, making clear that the Australian judgment’s finality had no preclusive effect in India.

The Indian decision in Dhawan is instructive for understanding how Indian courts approach parallel matrimonial litigation involving foreign forums. The Delhi court’s reasoning demonstrates a methodology grounded in statutory competence, recognition, and public policy.

In contrast, Australian courts apply the “clearly inappropriate forum” test from Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd, as confirmed in Henry v Henry for family law matters. The absence of a comprehensive bilateral or multilateral judgments regime between Australia and India means that Indian decisions like Dhawan do not, by themselves, undermine Australian jurisdiction where proceedings have been properly instituted and a substantial domestic connection exists.

 

Australian Doctrine: Voth and Its Application in Family Proceedings

The High Court in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd established that the relevant question is not whether a foreign court is more appropriate, but whether the Australian court is a clearly inappropriate forum, such that continuation would be unjust, vexatious, or oppressive.

In Henry v Henry, the High Court confirmed that the Voth test governs matrimonial stay applications. The existence of parallel foreign proceedings does not, without more, displace Australian jurisdiction. Relevant considerations include:

Australian family courts may grant anti-suit relief where foreign proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive, but such relief is exercised cautiously and only after resolving any stay application. Duplication and first seisin (which court was first seized of the matter) are relevant but not decisive, and the onus remains on the party seeking a stay to show that Australia is clearly inappropriate.

 

Indian Approach Evidenced by Dhawan

Indian courts first determine whether jurisdiction is properly attracted under the relevant matrimonial statute, considering residence, domicile, a real cause of action in India, and any local statutory rights.

The court assesses whether a foreign decree is recognisable under the Civil Procedure Code and matrimonial law, and whether foreign proceedings or outcomes would offend Indian public policy.

The analysis is jurisdiction-affirming: Indian courts focus on whether Indian jurisdiction is validly invoked and whether foreign proceedings undermine justice or Indian statutory protections, rather than comparing the appropriateness of forums.

Indian courts have resisted attempts to subordinate Indian proceedings to foreign suits, especially where matrimonial status or rights under Indian personal law are at stake and where recognition or enforcement abroad is uncertain.

 

Enforcement Considerations

Australia is party to several Hague instruments (service, evidence, child abduction) and has reciprocal recognition mechanisms with New Zealand. However, Australia is not a party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. Enforcement of non-money foreign judgments otherwise depends on statute or common law and can be limited.

India is not a party to the Hague Judgments Convention. Recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees is governed by Indian domestic law. The absence of a multilateral judgments convention between Australia and India reduces reciprocity and predictability in cross-border enforcement, a factor considered under Voth and Henry when assessing the practicality and completeness of relief.

Australian family property jurisdiction operates in personam, meaning courts can adjust parties’ interests in overseas assets by making orders directed at the parties themselves, while generally avoiding orders that would directly conflict with foreign land law or public policy. The Full Court has emphasised caution where an order would operate in direct conflict with foreign law. This in-personam focus can weigh against a stay under Voth where the Australian court can practically and fairly resolve the controversy, subject to enforceability concerns.

 

Assessment of the Dhawan Decision’s Persuasive Weight

 

Practical Implications for NSW Family Law Proceedings with Indian Parallels

 

Conclusion

Shikhar Dhawan v Aesha Dhawan reflects a sovereignty, and statute-centred Indian approach to matrimonial jurisdiction, focused on domestic competence, recognition, and public policy. Australian courts, applying Voth as confirmed in Henry v Henry, will not cede jurisdiction unless the local forum is shown to be clearly inappropriate. Robust Indian assertions of jurisdiction do not, without more, undermine Australian proceedings. Where Australian proceedings have been properly instituted and a substantial domestic connection exists, the Australian court’s doctrinal position remains secure, with duplication and comity considered within the high Voth threshold.

Family law practices in New South Wales are increasingly at risk of AML/CTF regulation in property settlement and spousal support orders, especially if the practice receives or makes payments, facilitates real property transactions, or restructures family trusts. Starting 31 March 2026, practices offering a designated service must register with AUSTRAC, with full requirements beginning 1 July 2026. The following 12-point plan combines family law relief with risk-based AML regulation.

1) Establish Scope and Implement Immediate Risk Measures

Assess if the matter involves a designated service (such as trust account settlements, property transactions, trust/company restructurings). If suspicious circumstances emerge, suspend transactions (without alerting the party), refer to the AMLCO/risk partner, segregate communications, and document a contemporaneous risk memo.

2) Risk-Based Customer Due Diligence

Check identity (VOI) and obtain complete identifying information. Identify and verify beneficial parties and controllers of companies, trusts (including appointers and beneficiaries), SMSFs, and third-party funders. Screen for PEPs, exposure to sanctions, and adverse media. Obtain written beneficial ownership and third-party payment statements.

3) Determine and Confirm Source of Funds and Source of Wealth

Seek reasonable risk-based evidence of the source of funds used in the transaction (bank statements, settlement statements, loan agreements, payroll records) and the source of wealth (tax returns, financial statements, trust deeds, inheritance records). Use enhanced CDD in high-risk situations.

4) Create Funds Flow Maps and Strengthen Settlement Arrangements

Develop a funds flow map from source to destination. Demand remittance from confirmed accounts in the name of (or third party to) the relevant party. Ban cash and anonymous remitters. Make payments only to confirmed payees, with dual confirmation for changes to accounts.

5) Use Red Flags Relevant to Family Issues

Review for suspicious lack of explanation for large deposits, unexplained “loans,” round-trip transactions, unconnected offshore receipts, under/overvaluation of assets, payments structured around $10,000, refunds to strangers, or suspicious explanations for source of funds.

6) Use Family Law Tools to Trace and Preserve Property
Deploy disclosure and subpoenas to banks, accountants, trustees, and exchanges. Seek freezing or injunction orders where dissipation risk exists. Consider applications under s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 to set aside defeating transactions, and third-party orders under s 90AE. Engage forensic accountants for complex or cross-border structures.

7) Crypto, Remittance and Cross-Border Payments (Heightened Controls)
Require liquidation of crypto via regulated exchanges linked to verified accounts. Collect exchange statements, wallet addresses, and transaction hashes. Prohibit mixers and off-exchange trades. For offshore transfers, obtain SWIFT/MT103 records and credible purpose-of-payment evidence; apply ECDD for high-risk jurisdictions.

8) Decisioning and AUSTRAC Reporting (from 1 July 2026)
If suspicion forms on reasonable grounds while providing a designated service, submit a Suspicious Matter Report within three business days (24 hours for terrorism financing). Do not tip off. Conduct a legal professional privilege analysis and document decision-making.

9) Trust Account Governance and Reporting Baselines
Do not operate as a “bank.” Handle funds only with a clear legal nexus to the retainer. Enforce strict authority protocols, segregate duties, monitor reporting triggers (e.g. threshold cash transactions where applicable), and retain records for at least seven years.

10) Interface with Proceeds of Crime and Civil Confiscation
Check early for restraint or forfeiture proceedings under Commonwealth or NSW confiscation regimes that may affect the asset pool. Court orders do not “cleanse” tainted funds.

11) Documentation, Training and Independent Review
Maintain a matter-level ML/TF risk assessment, CDD/ECDD notes, funds-flow map, and decision logs. Provide targeted AML training to fee earners and trust staff. Subject procedures to periodic independent review and monitor updates from The Law Society of NSW and Law Council of Australia.

12) Condensed Due Diligence Checklist
Identity and beneficial ownership (VOI, corporate/trust/SMSF documents); source of funds (6–12 months’ bank statements, contracts, loan documents, payslips, tax returns); crypto/offshore (exchange KYC, wallet records, SWIFT data); risk screening (PEP/sanctions/adverse media); governance (funds-flow map, exception approvals, SMR/LPP documentation).

The recent legislature updates regarding the conduct of NSW Family Law practitioners create new potential consequences for a practitioner if they fail to identify or report suspicious activity connected with money laundering. The recent updates stress upon the importance of legal practitioner’s duty towards the law and rules.

Consequences under the AML & CTF Act (Cth)

Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 Cth ( AML Act), from the 1 July 2026, failing to report a suspicious matter via a Suspicious Matter Report with 3 business days or 24 hours for terrorism-financing suspicions may incur civil penalty contraventions and proceedings. This may include infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, and remedial directions as well as a large penalty fine. Furthermore, failure in maintaining an adequate Anti-Money Laundering Program, or record‑keeping may provide grounds for systemic breaches of the legislation- therefore increasing the possibility of civil proceedings being taken against you.

Consequences under Legal Profession Uniform Law and ASCR

Unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct where the practitioner:

  1. fails or is wilfully blind to the use of the client’s or their trust account for purposes unconnected to legal services,
  2. Or fails in maintaining competence and diligence in verifying client’s identity with relation to transactions
  3. Or breaches statutory duties

may amount to reprimand, conditions on practice, fines, suspension or cancellation of a practising certificate, and costs orders lodged against the practitioner. It can also trigger regulator audits, external examiner qualifications, personal liability for trust deficits and compensation orders and disciplinary actions.

Criminal Proceedings

Under the Criminal Code (Cth), if a practitioner knows, is reckless to, or believes there is a substantial risk that the property is a proceed of crime and deals with it (including by facilitating transactions or handling funds), they risk criminal prosecution. They may be charged with accessory liability, conspiracy, procuring or obstructing justice. However, mere negligence is insufficient to prove criminal liability.

Key Steps to take if you are a family-law practitioner:

Concealing assets during family law proceedings undermines fair property settlements and can facilitate money laundering. This article outlines common concealment tactics, recent legal developments, and the tools available to family lawyers in Australia.

 

Common Asset Concealment Tactics

Individuals may use several methods to hide assets, including:

- Offshore Accounts: Moving funds to foreign banks with strict privacy laws.

- Shell Companies: Using companies with no real operations to obscure ownership.

- Cryptocurrency: Transferring wealth via digital currencies, which are harder to trace.

- Third-Party Transfers: Temporarily shifting assets to friends or relatives.

- Misrepresenting Asset Values: Undervaluing assets or overstating debts.

These strategies can not only frustrate property division but may also amount to money laundering, especially if the intent is to disguise ownership or the source of funds.

 

Legal Remedies and Investigative Tools

Family lawyers can use several tools to uncover hidden assets:

- Disclosure Orders:  Compelling parties to provide detailed financial information.

- Freezing Orders: Preventing parties from dealing with assets during proceedings.

- Anton Piller Orders: Allowing search and seizure of evidence to prevent its destruction.

- Subpoenas: Obtaining documents from third parties to trace asset movements.

 

Conclusion

Asset concealment in family law not only disrupts fair settlements but can also facilitate money laundering. By understanding concealment tactics, using available legal tools, and collaborating with experts, family lawyers can help ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of the family law system. Ongoing reforms and vigilance remain essential to address these challenges.

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker