After separation, it is common for parties to continue to be financially enmeshed pending a property settlement.

A recent decision by the Court serves as an alarming reminder to separated couples that the risks of improper or fraudulent tax accounting during the marriage remain even if Court proceedings between former spouses (or partners) settle before a Judge hears their case.

On Monday 7 April, more or less at about the same time that Australia signed a free trade agreement with Japan, Meyer Partners Family Lawyers entertained a high level delegation from the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations.

This is the tale of a dog that turned out to be furniture, with some French polish added.

On 29 March 2014 Registry offices across the United Kingdom opened their doors for the first same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The case of Strahan has been occupying the Family Court since 2005, and the parties have spent millions of dollars on the litigation.

In the recent unimaginatively anonymised decision of XX Firm & ZZ Firm and Ors [2013] Fam CA 1007, the Court looked at how to treat the competing interests of two law firms owed money by the same client, where both firms acted for the client in relation to ongoing family law proceedings.

In a recent case Bevan & Bevan [2014] the Court upheld the parties' long standing informal agreement that the wife keep all of the marital property.

Read this fascinating article just published in the Law Institute Journal, Victoria on Social Media within the Family Law Context.

Australian law has allowed binding and enforceable pre and post nuptial contracts since the end of 2000. Many other countries, particularly in Europe, South Africa and parts of the Commonwealth have had enforceable prenuptial agreements for a long time. England has not.

Section 44(3) of the Family Law Act provides that no application for property settlement or spouse maintenance may be brought after the expiration of 12 months from the date of a divorce order or without the court's leave.

Legally, the short answer to this question is "yes". The Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) makes it an offense for a person ordinarily resident or domiciled in New South Wales to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement, regardless of where it takes place.

In examining significant case-law on the issue of jurisdiction, the Court found that interim relief cannot be granted unless the relevant facts which give the Court jurisdiction have been established.

On Friday 24 January 2014, Japan formally ratified the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia has significantly challenged the controversial "special contribution" or "special skills" doctrine.

In a recent decision, we may have had the curtain fall on a long running case called Wallace v Steltzer, reported at 2013 FamCAFC 199. This is colloquially known as the "Pole Dancer Case"…