When family lawyers or judges come to consider how to divide property between the parties to a relationship that has broken down, what do they do?

A recent case called Sarai & Talwar, features a couple of different points, but one relating to what it takes to end a marriage.

A fairly high percentage of relationships end because they break down. 100% of all relationships will end, either by breakdown of the relationship or by death.

In the very recent case of Simic v Norton Justice Benjamin in the Family Court of Australia harshly criticised the amount of money charged by the lawyers in a case he decided.

The are some incredible and innovative Apps available that make communications for separating families much easier whether those families are still separated under one roof or not.

One of the more difficult tasks that we confront is deciding when a couple is in a de facto relationship. There is no difficulty in proving, in almost every case, whether a couple is married or not.  There is a marriage certificate.  While de facto relationships can be registered, very few are.

As from 1 January 2017, payees may take action to recover arrears of periodic payments of child support. Such arrears are a debt due to the Commonwealth and, in the past, recovery action could only be taken by the Commonwealth by the Child Support Registrar.

We take our freedoms for granted. This includes some we don't really have.

The Family Court (the Court) delivered a decision in May dealing with the granting of a Gett (Jewish Divorce) and the Court's powers in relation to it. This is not the first time the Court has had an opportunity to deal with the issue but this time the Court refused to get involved.

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.