View a full copy of this report (PDF Size - 3.69 MB) - Family Court of ...
View a full copy of this report (PDF Size - 3.69 MB) - Family Court of ...
View a full copy of this report (PDF Size - 3.69 MB) - Family Court of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia | Annual Report 2005–2006
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia | Annual Report 2005–2006
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005-06<br />
ISSN 1035-9060<br />
© <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia 2006<br />
www.familycourt.gov.au<br />
This work is <strong>copy</strong>right. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,<br />
no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from:<br />
Chief Executive Officer<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
GPO Box 9991<br />
Canberra ACT 2601<br />
Cover photographs:<br />
Top: Mural paintings, Adelaide Registry.<br />
Main: Adelaide Registry’s Indigenous courtroom, ‘Wadna Wadna Wodli’<br />
(place <strong>of</strong> decision-making), <strong>of</strong>ficially opened in May 2006.<br />
Other photographs:<br />
Page xiii: Chief Justice Diana Bryant and CEO Richard Foster<br />
Page 7: Chief Justice Diana Bryant and Indigenous elders at the opening <strong>of</strong> Wadna<br />
Wadna Wodli<br />
Page 19: Medina Idress presented with graduation certificate from the ‘Living in<br />
Harmony’ education program<br />
Page 102: The <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ CD information pack<br />
Page 105: The National Enquiry Centre which handles almost 1000 calls per day<br />
Page 105: Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s, Adelaide, opened in February 2006<br />
Page 109: <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s website — the online entry point to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong><br />
Graphic design by Design Direction, Canberra ACT<br />
Printed by Goanna Print
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006<br />
iii
iv<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
CONTENTS<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> transmittal<br />
List <strong>of</strong> figures and tables<br />
Reader’s guide<br />
Glossary <strong>of</strong> acronyms<br />
The Chief Justice and CEO<br />
iii<br />
vii<br />
ix<br />
xi<br />
xiii<br />
Part 1 Chief Justice’s Review 1<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law reforms 3<br />
Combined Registry 4<br />
Children’s Cases Program / less adversarial trials 5<br />
Child Responsive Dispute Resolution Program 6<br />
Judicial workload 7<br />
Part 2 Overview <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> 11<br />
General overview 13<br />
Governance 14<br />
Planning 15<br />
Risk management, internal audit and fraud control 15<br />
Financial overview 16<br />
Outside participation 16<br />
Projects and <strong>Court</strong> initiatives 17<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional development 20<br />
Judges and judicial registrars 21<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> structure and locations 25<br />
Part 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance 29<br />
Performance measurement 31<br />
Data quality 32<br />
Output structure 32<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Output Group 1.1 Resolution 34<br />
Consent Orders 34<br />
Mediated Agreements 35<br />
Output Group 1.2 Determination 36<br />
Divorces 36<br />
Applications in a Case - Interim Orders 38<br />
Final Orders 39<br />
Self-represented litigants 43<br />
Part 4 Appeals 45<br />
Appeal Division 47<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> sittings 47<br />
General trends in appeals 48<br />
Appeals to the High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia 53<br />
Part 5 Significant Judgments 55<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> judgments 57<br />
First instance judgments 77<br />
Part 6 Other Reporting 89<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> Human Resources 91<br />
Workforce planning, retention and turnover 92<br />
Certified Agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) 94<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> staff 94<br />
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) 97<br />
Disability strategy 100<br />
Workplace Diversity Plan 100<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> information 100<br />
Service Charter 102<br />
Client feedback and complaints management 102<br />
External scrutiny 103<br />
Purchasing 103<br />
vi<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Property 104<br />
Consultants and competitive tendering 106<br />
Discretionary grants 108<br />
Ecologically sustainable development <strong>report</strong>ing 108<br />
Advertising and market research 109<br />
PART 7 Financial statements for the year ended 30 june 2006 111<br />
Financial statements table <strong>of</strong> contents 113<br />
PART 8 Appendices 159<br />
Appendix 1 <strong>Court</strong> committees and public submissions 161<br />
Appendix 2 Judicial activities 165<br />
Appendix 3 Contact details 168<br />
Appendix 4 Resources for outcomes 171<br />
Part 9 Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms 173<br />
PART 10 INDEXES 177<br />
Compliance index 179<br />
Alphabetical index 181<br />
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES<br />
FIGURES<br />
Figure 1: Total number <strong>of</strong> filings 33<br />
Figure 2: Total incoming, finalised and pending applications by financial year 33<br />
Figure 3: Applications for Consent Orders filed by state 34<br />
Figure 4:<br />
Figure 5:<br />
Incoming, finalised and pending consent orders applications<br />
by financial year 35<br />
Percentage <strong>of</strong> cases resolved through Mediated Agreements<br />
by financial year 36<br />
Figure 6: Applications for Divorce filed by state 37<br />
Figure 7:<br />
Incoming, finalised and pending Applications for Divorce<br />
by financial year 37<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006<br />
vii
Figure 8: Applications in a Case filed by state, over the past three financial years 38<br />
Figure 9: Incoming, finalised and pending Applications in a Case by financial year 39<br />
Figure 10: Applications for Final Orders filed by state 40<br />
Figure 11:<br />
Incoming, finalised and pending Applications for Final Orders<br />
by financial year 40<br />
Figure 12: Number <strong>of</strong> cases finalised at trial by type <strong>of</strong> finalisation 41<br />
Figure 13: Overall months to finalise 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> Applications for Final Orders 41<br />
Figure 14:<br />
Incoming, finalised and pending final orders applications<br />
(determination phase) by financial year 42<br />
Figure 15: Attrition <strong>of</strong> cases from filing to finalisation 43<br />
Figure 16: Percentage <strong>of</strong> final orders applications by representation status 44<br />
Figure 17: Percentage <strong>of</strong> trials by representation status 44<br />
Figure 18: Appeals filed, finalised and pending by financial year 49<br />
Figure 19: Appeals filed by jurisdiction 49<br />
Figure 20: Appeals finalised in 2005-06 by finalisation type 50<br />
Figure 21: Appeals finalised by financial year and finalisation type 51<br />
Figure 22: Issues raised in appeals 2005-06 52<br />
Figure 23: Appellants by gender and self-representation 52<br />
Figure 24: Months to finalise 25 per cent and 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> appeals 53<br />
TabLes<br />
Table 1: Workforce turnover 93<br />
Table 2: Staffing overview by location 94<br />
Table 3: Classification structure and pay rates 96<br />
Table 4: Occupational health and safety premium rate comparison 97<br />
Table 5: Consultant services contracts let during 2005-06 107<br />
viii<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Reader’s guide<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> annual <strong>report</strong> is to inform the Attorney-General, the Parliament,<br />
<strong>Court</strong> clients and the general public about the performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia during the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006.<br />
This <strong>report</strong> provides information on the <strong>Court</strong>’s performance in relation to its stated<br />
outcome:<br />
Serving the interests <strong>of</strong> the Australian community by ensuring families and children in<br />
need can access effective high quality services.<br />
Part 1:<br />
Part 2:<br />
Part 3:<br />
Part 4:<br />
Part 5:<br />
Part 6:<br />
The Chief Justice’s Review – comprises the Chief Justice’s overview highlighting<br />
significant issues and initiatives the <strong>Court</strong> has undertaken during<br />
the <strong>report</strong>ing year.<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> – provides basic information about the <strong>Court</strong>,<br />
including its role, functions and powers, governance and organisational<br />
structure, pr<strong>of</strong>essional development and planning.<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance – provides information and commentary<br />
on the <strong>Court</strong>’s workload and performance results. This chapter includes<br />
information on performance measured against the <strong>Court</strong>’s two output<br />
groups: Resolution and Determination.<br />
Appeals division – contains statistical and narrative information on the<br />
Appeals Division <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, including its constitution and general trends<br />
in appeals throughout the <strong>report</strong>ing year.<br />
Significant judgments – contains detailed summaries <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
important decisions (Full <strong>Court</strong> and first instance) made by the <strong>Court</strong> during<br />
the <strong>report</strong>ing year.<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing – provides information on human resource management<br />
within the organisation, the <strong>Court</strong>’s staff and the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong><br />
generally.<br />
The audited financial statements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> are set out at the end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong>,<br />
commencing at page 111. The remaining appendices include more detailed information<br />
on the <strong>Court</strong>’s committees, the activities <strong>of</strong> the judiciary, particularly the Chief Justice,<br />
including participation in conferences and other speaking engagements, contact<br />
details for the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries, and the <strong>Court</strong>’s resources for outcomes. A complete list<br />
<strong>of</strong> appendices is provided in the table <strong>of</strong> contents.<br />
The following tools may assist in finding information in the <strong>report</strong> – the table <strong>of</strong><br />
contents at page v, glossary <strong>of</strong> terms at page 173, the compliance index at page 179 and<br />
the alphabetical index at page 181.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006<br />
ix
An electronic version <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> annual <strong>report</strong> is available from the <strong>Court</strong>’s website at<br />
www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/connect/www/home/publications/annual_<strong>report</strong>s/<br />
Further information about the <strong>Court</strong> is also available from its website at<br />
www.familycourt.gov.au or from www.familylawcourts.gov.au.<br />
Enquiries, comments or requests for more information about the <strong>Court</strong>’s services or <strong>this</strong><br />
annual <strong>report</strong> may be addressed in the first instance to:<br />
Manager, Communications Office<br />
National Support Office<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
GPO Box 9991<br />
Canberra ACT 2601<br />
Phone: 02 6243 8690<br />
Fax: 02 6243 8711<br />
Email: <br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information enquiries should be directed to:<br />
FOI Coordinator<br />
GPO Box 9991<br />
Canberra ACT 2601<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Glossary <strong>of</strong> acronyms<br />
AASB Australian Accounting Standards Board<br />
AGD Attorney-General’s Department<br />
AGIMO Australian Government Information Management Office<br />
AIFS Australian Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies<br />
AM Member <strong>of</strong> the Order <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
ANAO Australian National Audit Office<br />
AO Officer <strong>of</strong> the Order <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
APS Australian Public Service<br />
ATO Australian Tax Office<br />
ATSI Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander<br />
AWA Australian Workplace Agreement<br />
CA Certified Agreement<br />
CCP Children’s Cases Program<br />
CEI Chief Executive Instruction<br />
CEO Chief Executive Officer<br />
CJ Chief Justice<br />
CLC Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s<br />
CRM Child Responsive Model<br />
DHA (Federal) Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Ageing<br />
DIMA (Federal) Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration and Multicultural Affairs<br />
EL Executive Level <strong>of</strong> the Australian Public Service<br />
FC <strong>Family</strong> Consultant (‘Indigenous family liaison <strong>of</strong>ficer’ post 1 July 2006)<br />
FCoA <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
FLC <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s<br />
FMAA Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997<br />
FMC Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong><br />
FOI Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information<br />
FRC <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Centre<br />
GST Goods & services tax<br />
IFLO Indigenous <strong>Family</strong> Liaison Officer (see ‘FC’)<br />
IT Information Technology<br />
JC Judicial circuit<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006<br />
xi
JRC<br />
LIH<br />
MC<br />
MO<br />
NEC<br />
NSO<br />
OH&S<br />
PAC<br />
PBS<br />
PCI<br />
PDS<br />
PSM<br />
RC<br />
RFD<br />
SES<br />
SRC<br />
SRL<br />
Judicial Registrar circuit<br />
Living in Harmony<br />
Mediation circuit<br />
Mediation/outreach<br />
National Enquiry Centre<br />
National Support Office (Canberra)<br />
Occupational health & safety<br />
Policy Advisory Committee<br />
Portfolio Budget Statement<br />
Pending cases inventory<br />
Performance Development System<br />
Public Service Medal<br />
Registrar circuit<br />
Reserve Force Decoration<br />
Senior Executive Service <strong>of</strong> the APS<br />
Senior Registrar circuit<br />
Self-represented litigant<br />
xii<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Chief Justice Diana Bryant<br />
Justice Bryant has been the Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia since July 2004.<br />
Prior to her appointment, Chief Justice Bryant was the<br />
inaugural Chief Federal Magistrate <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong> (FMC), having held that <strong>of</strong>fice since May 2000.<br />
For the 10 years preceding her appointment to the FMC,<br />
Chief Justice Bryant practised at the Victorian Bar where<br />
she specialised in family law and de facto property<br />
disputes. She was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1997.<br />
Chief Justice Bryant holds Bachelor <strong>of</strong> Laws and Master <strong>of</strong> Laws degrees. She was<br />
admitted as a legal practitioner in Victoria in 1970.<br />
The Chief Justice is based in Melbourne.<br />
Chief Executive Officer Richard Foster<br />
Richard Foster has been the Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia since May 2000.<br />
Mr Foster has spent his entire working life in court<br />
administration across many jurisdictions.<br />
Prior to his current appointment Mr Foster spent six years<br />
as Executive Director, <strong>Court</strong>s and Tribunals in Western<br />
Australia’s Department <strong>of</strong> Justice. Previous to his move to<br />
Perth, Mr Foster worked in a range <strong>of</strong> capacities within the<br />
South Australian court system.<br />
Mr Foster is one <strong>of</strong> Australia’s most senior court administrators and has extensive<br />
experience at senior management level working in the ‘third arm <strong>of</strong> Government’.<br />
Richard Foster is based in Canberra.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006<br />
xiii
Chief justice’s review<br />
Part 1
Chief Justice’s review Part 1<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The past year has been a challenging and productive one for the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia with a number <strong>of</strong> key initiatives either completed or significantly progressed.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law reforms<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (the Act), which<br />
came into effect on 1 July 2006, makes important changes to the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
family law system, particularly through the establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Relationship<br />
Centres, and to the substantive law applied by courts exercising jurisdiction under the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975.<br />
The primary purpose <strong>of</strong> the Act is to encourage shared parental responsibility after<br />
separation (ins<strong>of</strong>ar as <strong>this</strong> is consistent with the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child), promote<br />
resolution <strong>of</strong> disputes outside court and enable parenting disputes to be conducted<br />
using a less adversarial and more child focused approach. The Act also changes the way<br />
in which parenting orders can be enforced and imposes an obligation on family courts<br />
to give early consideration to allegations <strong>of</strong> violence or abuse.<br />
Part 1<br />
Chief Justice’s review<br />
The Government introduced the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility)<br />
Bill 2006 into the House <strong>of</strong> Representatives in December last year. It passed the House in<br />
March 2006 although a month earlier the proposed legislation was also referred to the<br />
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and <strong>report</strong>. The <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> made a short submission to the Inquiry.<br />
The Senate amended the Bill and referred it back to the House <strong>of</strong> Representatives where<br />
it passed in late May.<br />
During the Act’s development and passage, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> regularly consulted with<br />
the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) to provide feedback on the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
new laws and how they could be improved. Many <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s suggestions provided<br />
during those consultations have been incorporated into the Act.<br />
In addition, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> undertook a broad range <strong>of</strong> activities to ensure it was<br />
prepared for the commencement <strong>of</strong> the new legislation. For example, the <strong>Court</strong><br />
delivered training programs to all <strong>Court</strong> staff, including a dedicated registrar education<br />
program. Judges and judicial registrars were also provided with information packages<br />
about the legislation at the Judges Meeting in May, and received specific training on the<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> Division 12A <strong>of</strong> the Act, which contains principles for the conduct <strong>of</strong> less<br />
adversarial proceedings in children’s cases. The <strong>Court</strong>’s Case Management Directions,<br />
Case Management Manual and benchbook were all reviewed to ensure consistency<br />
with the changed laws, and the <strong>Court</strong>’s forms and brochures have also been updated.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Additionally, the <strong>Court</strong> issued Practice Direction Nos. 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> 2006 to give the legal<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession guidance about transitional arrangements and the conduct <strong>of</strong> child-related<br />
proceedings. Referral protocols between the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ National Enquiry<br />
Centre and the <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Advice Line (AGD) have also been developed.<br />
Chief Justice’s review Part 1<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment Rules 2006<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004 were amended by the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment Rules 2006,<br />
which came into effect on 1 July 2006. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Rules amendments was to<br />
cater for the commencement <strong>of</strong> the new family law legislation and the Jurisdiction <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong>s (<strong>Family</strong> Law) Act 2006, as well as clarifying issues and procedures.<br />
The Rule changes also amend various delegations and introduce new forms. The<br />
development <strong>of</strong> new Rules and forms was a priority project for the <strong>Court</strong>’s Rules<br />
Committee during 2005-06.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Board<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Board, comprising <strong>of</strong> the Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, the<br />
Chief Federal Magistrate <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> and the Chief Executives<br />
<strong>of</strong> each court, established during the previous year to oversee the coordination and<br />
management <strong>of</strong> the shared arrangements evolving through the combined registry<br />
initiative and other shared services arrangements, continued to meet during 2005-06.<br />
The Board has functioned effectively in considering and working towards the<br />
resolution <strong>of</strong> cross-court issues.<br />
Combined Registry<br />
In July 2004 the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> (FMC) commenced<br />
work on a combined family law registry. The Combined Registry Program is managed<br />
by a steering committee comprising the two Heads <strong>of</strong> Jurisdiction, the Deputy Chief<br />
Justice, a Federal Magistrate, the two Chief Executive Officers, and a representative<br />
from the Attorney-General’s Department.<br />
The Combined Registry Program has five key aims:<br />
reduce confusion for clients through a single point <strong>of</strong> filing and the introduction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
common form<br />
reduce the number <strong>of</strong> times clients need to attend court and ensure each event adds<br />
value and progresses the case towards a conclusion<br />
provide earlier access to a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
provide a single entry point – it has been agreed by both <strong>Court</strong>s that the FMC will<br />
ultimately provide the single entry point, and<br />
provide services that make the process more timely and help to improve community<br />
perception <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s.<br />
Sixteen individual projects are being progressed as part <strong>of</strong> the Combined Registry<br />
initiative. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> continued its work under the Combined Registry Project<br />
during 2005-06 with a number <strong>of</strong> significant initiatives being completed.<br />
Over the past 12 months, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> have:<br />
established a national family courts telephone enquiry centre, accessible for the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> a local call. Clients are able to obtain information about family law, applying<br />
to the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s and the forms and publications <strong>of</strong> both courts. General<br />
information about a client’s case, for example the date <strong>of</strong> the next court event, can<br />
also be provided<br />
implemented the first stage <strong>of</strong> the family law courts website, which provides information,<br />
brochures and forms for both the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong><br />
(www.familylawcourts.gov.au)<br />
developed a series <strong>of</strong> pilot projects involving the use <strong>of</strong> registrars to support Federal<br />
Magistrates in Brisbane, Melbourne, Parramatta and Canberra registries<br />
standardised, where appropriate, the more than 200 letters commonly used by<br />
registries under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Registry banner<br />
developed a nationally consistent approach for registries to handle transfers<br />
between the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> and state courts<br />
integrated the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and FMC hard <strong>copy</strong> files into one <strong>Family</strong> Law Registry file<br />
cover, to be used from 1 January 2007 onwards, and<br />
developed and installed consistent signage to identify family law registries in<br />
each location.<br />
Part 1<br />
Chief Justice’s review<br />
Children’s Cases Program / less adversarial trials<br />
The Children’s Cases Program (CCP) was developed by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> as a pilot for<br />
conducting child related proceedings in a less adversarial way. The pilot, which was<br />
conducted in the Sydney and Parramatta Registries, has now concluded with data<br />
collected on 200 cases up to 31 December 2005. In March 2006, Dr Jennifer McIntosh <strong>of</strong><br />
Latrobe University presented the <strong>Court</strong> with a <strong>report</strong> that explored the impact <strong>of</strong> CCP<br />
on parenting capacity and child wellbeing. The <strong>report</strong> compared data from parents<br />
participating in CCP with similar data from parents in a control group <strong>of</strong> cases that were<br />
finalised in the same period.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The CCP group <strong>report</strong>ed:<br />
Chief Justice’s review Part 1<br />
more satisfaction with post-court living arrangements, including for the children<br />
significantly less difficulty in managing conflict<br />
a positive impact <strong>of</strong> the court process on themselves as parents<br />
significantly less damage to the parenting relationship post-court and to the parent<br />
child relationship, and<br />
greater contentment and emotional stability in children after court.<br />
A final evaluation <strong>report</strong> prepared by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Rosemary Hunter <strong>of</strong> Griffith University in<br />
Queensland, similarly found that, as a less adversarial and more child focused process,<br />
the CCP has the potential to assist parents to parent more cooperatively.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Hunter also found that the CCP pilot resulted in a faster court process, and<br />
parties who had participated in CCP were generally more satisfied with that process<br />
than parties whose dispute was determined using a traditional adversarial approach.<br />
During the <strong>report</strong>ing year, the <strong>Court</strong> extended the pilot in New South Wales and<br />
planned to implement the program throughout the <strong>Court</strong> on a national basis by<br />
1 July 2006.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> now intends to use the CCP model it developed to implement the provisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Division 12A <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006<br />
which establishes principles for the conduct <strong>of</strong> child related proceedings in a less<br />
adversarial way. This new process is called the ‘Less Adversarial Trial’ for which the <strong>Court</strong><br />
has promulgated a Practice Direction dealing with less adversarial hearings.<br />
Child Responsive Dispute Resolution Program<br />
In June 2005, the <strong>Court</strong> received $239,604 in funding from the Attorney-General’s<br />
Department to pilot a new model for working with families. The project, entitled the<br />
‘Child Responsive Dispute Resolution Program’, was funded on a one-<strong>of</strong>f basis for<br />
12 months and commenced in the <strong>Court</strong>’s Melbourne Registry last October in tandem<br />
with the Children’s Cases Program.<br />
The pilot program provides for greater focus on children by obtaining children’s<br />
views and interviewing parents earlier. It also provides for the same family consultant<br />
(formerly ‘mediator’) to work with a family throughout its time with the <strong>Court</strong>, and to<br />
feedback views to parents at various stages throughout the <strong>Court</strong> process. Additionally,<br />
the <strong>Court</strong> will be able to refer people to community-based mediation and conciliation<br />
services if there is a real potential to resolve matters without further <strong>Court</strong> involvement.<br />
All interventions between the family and the family consultant (formerly ‘mediator’) are<br />
<strong>report</strong>able, meaning they are not confidential and can be used in court.<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
While the formal evaluation <strong>of</strong> the pilot is yet to be completed, the preliminary results are<br />
very encouraging, particularly in terms <strong>of</strong> early settlement rates and parties’ willingness<br />
to try new parenting arrangements. The <strong>Court</strong> will consider the feasibility <strong>of</strong> introducing<br />
the new approach on a national basis after the evaluation is completed. National<br />
implementation, however, is dependent upon the availability <strong>of</strong> adequate funding.<br />
Opening <strong>of</strong> the new Adelaide <strong>Court</strong><br />
Adelaide’s new registry was <strong>of</strong>ficially opened in February 2006 by the Hon. John<br />
Howard MP, Prime Minister <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
Around 50 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> staff members, including<br />
family consultants (formerly ‘mediators’), librarians<br />
and more than 30 client service staff, now occupy<br />
the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s new premises. Six judicial<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers and six registrars sit in 10 courtrooms,<br />
including the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s specially designed<br />
Indigenous courtroom.<br />
Part 1<br />
Chief Justice’s review<br />
Chief Justice Diana Bryant with Kuarna elders,<br />
Josie Agius (left) and Lewis O’Brien, at the<br />
opening <strong>of</strong> Wadna Wadna Wodli in May 2006.<br />
The Indigenous courtroom, known as ‘Wadna<br />
Wadna Wodli’ (meaning ‘a place <strong>of</strong> decisionmaking’),<br />
was designed to recreate, as close as<br />
possible, an open air Aboriginal court (see front<br />
cover). The <strong>Court</strong>’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
Islander Committee consulted extensively with the<br />
local Kuarna community throughout the courtroom’s<br />
design and construction process.<br />
A key feature <strong>of</strong> Wadna Wadna Wodli is the<br />
circular seating, which enhances the concept <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Court</strong> conducting an inclusive process to determine the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child.<br />
The placement <strong>of</strong> the bar table at a similar height to the bench, the warm earthy tones<br />
and the use <strong>of</strong> woodwork and other sympathetic materials are also an essential part <strong>of</strong><br />
the courtroom’s design.<br />
Judicial workload<br />
At the commencement <strong>of</strong> the 2005-06 fiscal year there were 44 judges and six<br />
judicial registrars. At the end <strong>of</strong> the financial year there were 41 judges and six judicial<br />
registrars.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The number <strong>of</strong> Applications for Final Orders filed in 2005-06 per judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer was 232<br />
and the number finalised was 274. In 2004-05 the corresponding figures per judicial<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer were 234 applications filed and 277 finalised. There are three facts <strong>of</strong> significance<br />
about these figures.<br />
Chief Justice’s review Part 1<br />
The first is that they relate only to the <strong>Court</strong>’s caseload at first instance and do not<br />
include appeals which form a significant part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s core business.<br />
The second factor is that the cases pending reduced from 11,026 at 30 June 2005 to<br />
9050 at 30 June 2006. This shows that cases are being disposed at a higher rate than<br />
applications are being filed. The final factor is that in 2004-05 the percentage <strong>of</strong> cases<br />
settled at trial was 54 per cent whereas in 2005-06 it had dropped to 53 per cent. The<br />
corresponding measure for 2003-04 was 59 per cent. This reflects the fact that the cases<br />
being dealt with in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia are the more complex, difficult cases<br />
and thus less likely to settle.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> would like to see a continuing reduction <strong>of</strong> the pending cases list which<br />
would subsequently lead to reductions in the time taken for cases to be heard.<br />
However, <strong>this</strong> depends upon a stable number <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers to perform the work,<br />
timely replacement <strong>of</strong> judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers or, if judges are not replaced upon retirement,<br />
the capacity to transfer work to the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Each financial year, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> supplies services free <strong>of</strong> charge to the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. These services are provided from the <strong>Court</strong>’s annual appropriation<br />
and include:<br />
client services<br />
registrars<br />
family consultants (formerly ‘mediators’)<br />
property<br />
information technology, and<br />
security.<br />
The provision <strong>of</strong> these services must be taken into account when considering how the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s budget is expended.<br />
In 2006-07 the <strong>Court</strong> is seeking to transfer resources to the FMC so that it is able to<br />
purchase these services back from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. This transfer will provide greater<br />
transparency to Government on how the <strong>Court</strong>’s costs are expended, as well as provide<br />
greater control and accountability to the FMC. Accordingly, the memorandum <strong>of</strong><br />
understanding with the FMC will need to be modified to a purchaser/provider model<br />
and the <strong>Court</strong>’s outputs and respective unit prices will need to be revised in the<br />
Portfolio Budget Statements.<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Conclusion<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is reducing in size while the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong><br />
continues to grow. In particular, the number <strong>of</strong> judges and judicial registrars has<br />
decreased from 48 to 41 since the introduction <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> in 2000.<br />
This ongoing diminution requires careful management <strong>of</strong> the workload between the<br />
courts to ensure that the Australian community continues to receive a high quality and<br />
timely service in both courts which are integral parts <strong>of</strong> the family law system.<br />
Part 1<br />
Chief Justice’s review<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Part 2
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
12<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
General overview<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia, through its specialist judges and staff, helps Australians<br />
resolve their most complex family disputes.<br />
Presently, the <strong>Court</strong> is funded to provide two outputs:<br />
Resolution (measured by mediated agreements and consent orders), and<br />
Determination (measured by interim orders, final orders, appeals and divorces).<br />
The resolution output reflects the fact that, to date, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has invested<br />
significantly in resolving disputes through the work <strong>of</strong> its mediators and registrars.<br />
The Annual Report 2005-2006, in particular the Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance in Part 3,<br />
details the <strong>Court</strong>’s progress against those stated outputs during the <strong>report</strong>ing year.<br />
However, the function <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> has evolved as a result <strong>of</strong> reforms to the family law<br />
system which took effect on 1 July 2006. The establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Relationship<br />
Centres from that date and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>’s capacity to manage the less<br />
complex family law cases will enable the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> to better focus its resources on<br />
the determination <strong>of</strong> the most complex family law disputes in Australia.<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Accordingly, it is important to recognise that as Australia’s superior court in family law,<br />
the purpose <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is to:<br />
determine cases with complex law, facts and parties<br />
cover specialised areas, such as applications pursuant to the Hague Convention<br />
on International Child Abduction, special medical procedures, and international<br />
relocation, and<br />
provide national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has designed four programs <strong>of</strong> work to ensure that it fulfils its stated<br />
purpose:<br />
maintaining an environment that enables judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers to make effective<br />
decisions<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> client services<br />
corporate management <strong>of</strong> resources, and<br />
effective information and communication technologies.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s organisational structure is aligned to these programs <strong>of</strong> work and the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s purpose.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 13
Governance<br />
The Chief Justice is responsible for managing the administrative affairs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong><br />
(section 38A <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975) assisted by the Chief Executive Officer (section 38B).<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
The Chief Executive Officer’s powers are broad (section 38D), although subject to<br />
directions from the Chief Justice (section 38D(3)). The Chief Executive Officer holds<br />
the responsibilities and powers <strong>of</strong> an agency head under Commonwealth financial<br />
management and public service legislation. By delegation from the Chief Justice,<br />
Regional Coordinating Judges assist in administering judicial functions in particular<br />
areas, such as case management.<br />
There is a balance <strong>of</strong> powers and responsibilities across management and the judiciary.<br />
The Chief Justice has maintained a collegiate style <strong>of</strong> governance and the judges<br />
meet twice yearly in plenary. In addition, judges and staff participate in a number <strong>of</strong><br />
committees that develop policies across a range <strong>of</strong> matters.<br />
The Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), which meets quarterly, advises<br />
the Chief Justice on policy matters. The Rules Committee also meets quarterly.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> also has a number <strong>of</strong> other standing Committees that generally meet by<br />
telephone on a regular basis or as required, out <strong>of</strong> court hours. They are:<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee<br />
Access to Justice Committee<br />
Communications Committee<br />
Electronic Benchbook Committee<br />
Ethics and Research Committee<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee<br />
Information and Communication Technology Committee<br />
Judgment Publication Committee<br />
Law Reform Committee<br />
Library Committee<br />
National Case Management Committee<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Development Committee<br />
Property Management Committee<br />
The functions and role <strong>of</strong> various committees are detailed in Appendix 1.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> Management Group, comprising the Chief Executive Officer and other senior<br />
staff, is responsible for leading and implementing the <strong>Court</strong>’s strategic direction.<br />
Operational management is devolved to registries where managers work closely with<br />
judges to deliver court services to families in dispute.<br />
14<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Planning<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s Strategic Plan was last reviewed in February 2003. Recent<br />
developments across the family law system, particularly the introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong><br />
Relationship Centres from 1 July 2006 and the continued expansion <strong>of</strong> the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, have required the <strong>Court</strong> to confirm its core functions and review<br />
its strategic direction. Accordingly, during the <strong>report</strong>ing year, the <strong>Court</strong>’s judges and<br />
executive have further reviewed the strategic direction in line with the Government’s<br />
reform agenda.<br />
This planning has been informed by the client satisfaction research conducted during<br />
2005-06 and previous financial years. An important part <strong>of</strong> the work has been the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the combined registry in conjunction with the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong>. The combined registry is intended to better service clients in family law across<br />
both courts and demands the careful management <strong>of</strong> the courts’ resources to achieve<br />
that objective in balance with the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s strategic direction. This requires both<br />
courts to share resources in ways that optimise cost-efficiency in administering the<br />
family law courts.<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Risk management, internal audit and fraud control<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s Internal Audit Committee oversees the <strong>Court</strong>’s risk management, internal<br />
audit and fraud control functions. This committee comprises the Chief Executive Officer,<br />
the Executive Director Corporate, a Registry Manager, and Acumen Alliance, the <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
internal auditors who provide secretariat services to the committee.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s Business Risk and Fraud Control plan was reviewed during the year and was<br />
subsequently endorsed by the Internal Audit Committee.<br />
Several audits were conducted during the year:<br />
Travel Policy and Expenditure Follow-up<br />
Financial Compliance<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> Complaints<br />
Asset Management<br />
IT Security Review<br />
Records Management<br />
Purchasing and Contract Management<br />
Bank Reconciliation Process, and<br />
HR Personnel File and Personnel Data Follow-up Review.<br />
Recommendations from concluded audits are being progressively addressed.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 15
The Internal Audit Committee has also reviewed its processes to ensure compliance<br />
with the Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO) Better Practice Guide on Public<br />
Sector Audit Committees. As a result, it was determined that the key requirements were<br />
being met and the structures and processes that are already in place provide a strong<br />
corporate governance framework for the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has prevention, detection and investigation processes in place to manage<br />
fraud control. It also has <strong>report</strong>ing mechanisms in place to ensure proper processes are<br />
applied. The <strong>Court</strong> submits fraud control data to the Attorney-General’s Department<br />
annually and complies with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines.<br />
Financial overview<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is a prescribed agency under the Financial Management<br />
and Accountability Act 1997.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has <strong>report</strong>ed a $1.290 million loss for the 2005-06 financial year. This loss<br />
varies from that disclosed in the Portfolio Budget Statement and is primarily due to a<br />
decrease <strong>of</strong> $1.194 million in the carrying value <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s fixed assets, as valued by<br />
the <strong>Court</strong>’s independent qualified valuers, Preston Rowe Paterson Pty Ltd.<br />
The fixed asset valuation was conducted in accordance with AASB 116 and the Finance<br />
Minister’s Orders which require assets to be carried at their fair value.<br />
The decrease reflects the reduction in value <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s paper-based library assets<br />
and depreciated replacement cost <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s IT hardware assets. In 2004-05 the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>report</strong>ed a $0.004 million pr<strong>of</strong>it which has been adjusted to $0.425 million in the<br />
comparative year <strong>of</strong> the 2005-06 Financial Statements for the initial adoption <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Australian Equivalent <strong>of</strong> International Reporting Standards.<br />
Outside participation<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> has a number <strong>of</strong> consultative mechanisms to strengthen its<br />
partnership with clients and legal practitioners, community-based organisations and<br />
government.<br />
There are a number <strong>of</strong> mechanisms by which external agencies may participate in the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s processes. These include:<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law Council, established by the Attorney-General under section 115<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, confers with <strong>Court</strong> personnel in the course <strong>of</strong> its<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> particular aspects <strong>of</strong> family law.<br />
16<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The Australian Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies (AIFS) was established under section 114B<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 and is a forum for exchange <strong>of</strong> information and research.<br />
The Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice meet quarterly with the <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
Section <strong>of</strong> the Law Council <strong>of</strong> Australia and there are regular liaison meetings with<br />
local law societies and bar associations in each <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries.<br />
The Chief Justice’s <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum consists <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, the <strong>Family</strong> Law Section <strong>of</strong> the Law Council <strong>of</strong> Australia, National<br />
Legal Aid, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department <strong>of</strong> Families,<br />
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Child Support Agency, the AIFS,<br />
non-government organisations and community legal centres. The <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum<br />
meets quarterly to discuss shared issues <strong>of</strong> interest arising in the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
family law system.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has also developed networks with culturally and linguistically diverse<br />
communities through its Cultural Diversity Committee, and with mental health<br />
providers and advocates through its Mental Health Pilot Project.<br />
Individuals and organisations may also participate in the <strong>Court</strong>’s policy formulation<br />
by making representations in writing, either directly with the <strong>Court</strong>, through the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Council or through community consultations conducted by the <strong>Court</strong>. The<br />
<strong>Court</strong> also meets regularly in each region with members <strong>of</strong> the legal pr<strong>of</strong>ession and<br />
community.<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Projects and <strong>Court</strong> initiatives<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Violence<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy, during 2005-06, registries<br />
continued to build and maintain strong links with local organisations that assist clients<br />
with family violence issues. For example, the Sydney Domestic Violence Reference<br />
group is considering establishing a pilot <strong>Court</strong> support scheme, and the Adelaide<br />
Registry has assisted the Women’s Information Service to develop a program to train<br />
volunteers to support women experiencing family violence as they go through the<br />
court process.<br />
At the Brisbane Registry, a family violence screening and risk assessment pilot<br />
commenced in late 2005. The aim <strong>of</strong> the pilot was to ensure that family violence issues<br />
were identified as early as possible in the court process. Where appropriate, safety plans<br />
were developed with clients to facilitate their safety at <strong>Court</strong> events and maximise their<br />
capacity to participate in <strong>Court</strong> proceedings. The pilot was completed in March 2006<br />
and is being evaluated for consideration <strong>of</strong> national implementation.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> violence training was provided to all non-judicial <strong>Court</strong> staff during 2005-06 and<br />
the training package has been success<strong>full</strong>y evaluated.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 17
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence and Law Reform committees began developing draft<br />
guidelines for use in cases where family violence or the risk <strong>of</strong> family violence is alleged.<br />
These will be especially valuable in the context <strong>of</strong> amendments to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act in<br />
the area <strong>of</strong> family violence, particularly section 60K. This section imposes an obligation<br />
on courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act to give prompt consideration to<br />
allegations <strong>of</strong> violence or abuse, or the risk <strong>of</strong> violence or abuse, and, where appropriate,<br />
make orders with respect to the gathering <strong>of</strong> evidence and the protection <strong>of</strong> parties<br />
and children. The <strong>Court</strong> has developed a process to ensure that these allegations are<br />
brought to its attention as soon as possible through the filing <strong>of</strong> a Form 4: Notice <strong>of</strong> Child<br />
Abuse or <strong>Family</strong> Violence. Upon filing, the Form 4 and supporting affidavit will be<br />
immediately referred to a duty registrar. Where urgent interim orders are considered<br />
necessary, the application will be listed before a judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer on the same day.<br />
Standard timeframes governing specific court events are also being developed.<br />
The Government recently announced that the Australian Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies<br />
(AIFS) has been commissioned to undertake research on allegations <strong>of</strong> family violence<br />
and child abuse in family law proceedings. The research will examine material held by<br />
family courts to assess:<br />
the types <strong>of</strong> allegations and denials about family violence and child abuse, and the<br />
way that such allegations and denials arise<br />
how allegations and refutations are dealt with in court proceedings and what type<br />
<strong>of</strong> conclusions are reached, and<br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> allegations and proven cases on post-separation parenting<br />
arrangements.<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> will be working with the AIFS during <strong>this</strong> research project. The <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
Statistical Services Unit is also working to modify the Casetrack data collection system<br />
to facilitate the capture <strong>of</strong> outcome related measures.<br />
Magellan<br />
Magellan is a case management system designed to ensure that matters involving<br />
allegations <strong>of</strong> serious child abuse are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible.<br />
The Magellan case management system involves rigorous judicial management,<br />
including the imposition <strong>of</strong> strict time lines, early ‘front loading’ <strong>of</strong> resources such as the<br />
appointment <strong>of</strong> a child representative, provision <strong>of</strong> information from the relevant state<br />
welfare authority, and close liaison on case management between external information<br />
providers and a team <strong>of</strong> family consultants (formerly ‘mediators’).<br />
Magellan has now been implemented in all <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> registries, with the New South<br />
Wales Department <strong>of</strong> Children’s Services agreeing during 2005-06 to participate in the<br />
program. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s National Magellan Committee is in the process <strong>of</strong> finalising<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> reference for an external evaluation <strong>of</strong> Magellan. Ongoing work is also taking<br />
place to ensure consistent management <strong>of</strong> Magellan cases in the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries.<br />
18<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Living in Harmony<br />
Chief Justice Diana Bryant presents Medina<br />
Idress with a graduation certificate following<br />
the ‘Living in Harmony’ education program at<br />
Melbourne Registry<br />
In 2004-05 the <strong>Court</strong> received $108,000 from the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration and Multicultural<br />
Affairs (DIMA) under the ‘Living in Harmony’<br />
Partnership Program. The funding was provided<br />
to develop family law education strategies for<br />
new and emerging communities (in particular<br />
Afghan, Somali, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Sudanese and<br />
Iraqi). Community consultations undertaken as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the partnership were completed in July<br />
2005 in four states – New South Wales, Victoria,<br />
South Australia and Tasmania. A number <strong>of</strong><br />
common themes emerged, including:<br />
a lack <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> the different roles <strong>of</strong> state and Commonwealth courts,<br />
and<br />
a lack <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s mediation service.<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
To address the issues identified during the consultation process, each jurisdiction<br />
developed individual policies and programs to engage new and emerging<br />
communities.<br />
In recognition <strong>of</strong> the completion <strong>of</strong> programs developed through the ‘Living in<br />
Harmony’ Partnership, the Chief Justice awarded certificates to 12 leaders from<br />
Melbourne’s African communities and to 17 bilingual workers from a range <strong>of</strong><br />
community and government agencies in Parramatta.<br />
The project has now concluded, with an evaluation <strong>report</strong> to be provided to DIMA.<br />
Mental Health Support Pilot Project<br />
The Mental Health Support Pilot Project, a joint initiative between the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Australia and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, was launched in Adelaide by the Hon.<br />
Christopher Pyne, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, on<br />
5 December 2005. The Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Ageing sponsored the project and<br />
contributed $300,000 for an 18-month pilot from October 2004. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project was to pilot a range <strong>of</strong> measures to improve the mental health support provided<br />
to clients <strong>of</strong> both the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. There were four<br />
main objectives:<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> mental health literature to improve client and staff awareness<br />
<strong>of</strong> mental health and emotional wellbeing during separation.<br />
The development and provision <strong>of</strong> staff training to provide staff with the skills<br />
necessary for dealing with clients who present with mental health or emotional<br />
wellbeing issues.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 19
The development <strong>of</strong> internal protocols to provide staff with clear guidelines for<br />
dealing with clients who threaten harm to themselves or others.<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> a referral service to support clients with mental health<br />
issues by linking them directly to pr<strong>of</strong>essional counselling services provided by<br />
community- based organisations.<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
The project launch was jointly hosted by Chief Justice Diana Bryant and the Chief<br />
Federal Magistrate John Pascoe. The contributions <strong>of</strong> Justice Mark Le Poer Trench<br />
and the members <strong>of</strong> the Mental Health Support Project Steering Committee deserve<br />
particular mention.<br />
The pilot project, which was conducted in the <strong>Court</strong>’s Adelaide and Darwin registries,<br />
concluded on 30 June 2006. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> the pilot found that staff became more<br />
confident and capable <strong>of</strong> responding to clients suffering from stress and other mental<br />
health issues. In addition, the evaluation produced sound evidence on what areas<br />
<strong>of</strong> the project worked well and what areas needed improvement prior to national<br />
implementation.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional development<br />
As well as hearing and determining cases, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s judges and judicial<br />
registrars participate in development programs and actively contribute to the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the law both in Australia and internationally. On appointment, judges<br />
attend a Judicial Orientation Program conducted by the National Judicial College <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia, and a judgment writing course.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional development is generally achieved through attending specialist seminars<br />
organised by the <strong>Court</strong>, external conferences and seminars, presenting papers,<br />
addressing pr<strong>of</strong>essional associations and community-based organisations, meeting<br />
international delegations in Australia and liaising with judicial colleagues around<br />
the world. Many judges and judicial registrars also serve as members <strong>of</strong> organising<br />
committees for conferences as well as working in the community with legal and<br />
cultural organisations.<br />
The annual Judges Conference, held in November 2005, and a one-day Judges<br />
Meeting, held in May 2006, provided the opportunity for all judges and judicial<br />
registrars to familiarise themselves with and discuss the changes to legislation,<br />
practice and procedures.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> specialist training sessions to support the Children’s Cases Program, the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s less adversarial initiative, were also provided for judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers during the year.<br />
Further details about the Chief Justice’s participation and engagement in other judicial<br />
activities are provided in Appendix 2.<br />
20<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Judges and judicial registrars<br />
At the end <strong>of</strong> June 2006 there were 41 judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> including the Chief Justice.<br />
(NOTE: The date after the name <strong>of</strong> a judge in the following list is the date they were<br />
appointed to the Bench.)<br />
Chief Justice<br />
The Honourable Justice Diana Bryant 05/07/2004<br />
Part 2<br />
Deputy Chief Justice<br />
The Honourable Justice John Faulks 12/10/1994<br />
Judge Administrator<br />
(Commission as Judge Administrator in accordance with the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act)<br />
The Honourable Justice Neil John Buckley 07/02/1983<br />
Judges Assigned to Appeal Division<br />
The Honourable Chief Justice Diana Bryant<br />
The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks<br />
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn<br />
The Honourable Justice Joseph Victor Kay<br />
The Honourable Justice Michael Henry Holden<br />
(Chief Judge <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia)<br />
The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman<br />
The Honourable Justice Bernard John Warnick<br />
The Honourable Justice Michelle May<br />
The Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Judges<br />
Adelaide<br />
The Honourable Justice Kemeri Ann Murray AO 06/02/1976<br />
The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe<br />
(Regional Coordinating Judge, South Australia and Northern Territory) 03/03/1997<br />
The Honourable Justice Rodney Keith Burr AM 02/04/1998<br />
The Honourable Justice Steven Strickland 22/11/1999<br />
Brisbane<br />
The Honourable Justice Graham Rodney Bell 27/02/1976<br />
The Honourable Justice James Patrick O’Hara Barry 12/12/1983<br />
The Honourable Justice Bernard John Warnick 02/09/1991<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 21
The Honourable Justice Brian Edward Jordan 27/07/1994<br />
The Honourable Justice Michelle May 07/09/1995<br />
The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Madonna O’Reilly 10/01/2003<br />
The Honourable Justice Timothy Francis Carmody<br />
(Regional Coordinating Judge, Queensland) 07/07/2003<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
Townsville<br />
The Honourable Justice Alexander Robert Monteith 28/11/2000<br />
Melbourne<br />
The Honourable Justice Joseph Victor Kay 12/06/1986<br />
The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin<br />
(Regional Coordinating Judge, Victoria and Tasmania) 26/10/1990<br />
The Honourable Justice Sally Elizabeth Brown AM 23/11/1993<br />
The Honourable Justice Linda Marion Dessau 20/06/1995<br />
The Honourable Justice Paul Marshall Guest 01/05/1998<br />
The Honourable Justice Heather Barbara Carter 01/06/1998<br />
The Honourable Justice Michael Raymond Brock Watt 14/12/1998<br />
The Honourable Justice Peter Young 26/08/2002<br />
The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett 30/11/2005<br />
Hobart<br />
The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin 19/08/2005<br />
Canberra<br />
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn 02/07/1990<br />
Sydney<br />
The Honourable Justice Mary Jane Murray Lawrie 21/08/1986<br />
The Honourable Justice John Morris Cohen 01/02/1989<br />
The Honourable Justice Colleen Ann Moore 18/04/1991<br />
The Honourable Justice Stephen Richard O’Ryan 11/10/1994<br />
The Honourable Justice John Joseph Steele 01/12/1997<br />
The Honourable Justice Peter Isaac Rose 21/12/1998<br />
The Honourable Justice Jennifer Margaret Boland 29/10/1999<br />
The Honourable Justice Mark Frederick Le Poer Trench 10/10/2001<br />
The Honourable Justice Garry Allan Watts 14/04/2005<br />
Parramatta<br />
The Honourable Justice Ian Roy Coleman 18/04/1991<br />
The Honourable Justice Lloyd Dengate Stacy Waddy RFD 01/07/1998<br />
22<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The Honourable Justice Robyn Sylvia Flohm 17/05/1999<br />
The Honourable Justice David John Collier 19/07/1999<br />
The Honourable Justice Janine Patricia Hazelwood Stevenson 18/05/2001<br />
Newcastle<br />
The Honourable Justice Graham Robert Mullane<br />
(Regional Coordinating Judge, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory)<br />
28/07/1986<br />
Judicial Registrars<br />
Adelaide<br />
Mr Andrew Alderman Forbes 15/02/1989<br />
Brisbane<br />
Ms Dianne Margaret Smith 11/10/1994<br />
Melbourne<br />
Mr Jonathan Warwick Ramsden 21/04/1992<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
Sydney<br />
Mr William Philip Johnston 22/01/1990<br />
Mr Ian James Loughnan 06/11/1995<br />
Parramatta<br />
Mr David Peter Halligan 24/07/1991<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia<br />
(NOTE: Judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia also hold Commissions in the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia.)<br />
Chief Judge<br />
The Honourable Justice Michael Henry Holden 10/09/1991<br />
Judges<br />
The Honourable Justice Nicolas Tolcon 10/09/1991<br />
The Honourable Justice Elvina Martin 18/11/1996<br />
The Honourable Justice Julienne Penny 09/06/1999<br />
The Honourable Justice Stephen Ernest Thackray 01/12/2004<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 23
Administrative Appeals Tribunal<br />
(NOTE: Some judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> hold appointments in the Administrative<br />
Appeals Tribunal as Presidential Members.)<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
The Honourable Justice Mary Madeleine Finn<br />
The Honourable Justice James Patrick O’Hara Barry<br />
The Honourable Justice Nahum Mushin<br />
The Honourable Justice Christine Elizabeth Dawe<br />
The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin<br />
Appointments AND Retirements<br />
Appointments<br />
19 August 2005: The Honourable Justice Robert James Charles Benjamin<br />
30 November 2005: The Honourable Justice Victoria Jane Bennett<br />
Retirements<br />
20 September 2005: The Honourable Justice Michael Alexander Hannon<br />
23 September 2005: The Honourable Justice John Spencer Purdy<br />
22 November 2005: The Honourable Justice Thomas Roderick Joske<br />
10 January 2006: The Honourable Justice Alwynne Richard Owen Rowlands, AO RFD,<br />
Judge Administrator<br />
24 February 2006: The Honourable Justice Susan Mary Blore Morgan<br />
24<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> structure and locations<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> service locations<br />
Adelaide Registry<br />
Broken Hill JC/RC/MC<br />
Whyalla RC/MC<br />
Pt Augusta MC<br />
Pt Pirie MC<br />
Mt Gambier JC/RC/MC<br />
Berri MC<br />
Brisbane Registry<br />
C<strong>of</strong>fs Harbour JC/SRC/RC/MC<br />
Lismore Rural/Regional Registry<br />
JC/SRC/RC<br />
Canberra Registry<br />
Batemans Bay/Bega MC<br />
Dandenong Registry<br />
Bairnsdale JC/RC/MC<br />
Morwell/Gippsland RC<br />
Traralgon MC<br />
Sale MC<br />
Lilydale MC<br />
Darwin Registry<br />
Darwin JC/RC<br />
Katherine MC/ATSI*<br />
Tiwi Islands ATSI*<br />
Daley River ATSI*<br />
Alice Springs Rural/Regional Registry<br />
Pitjantjatjara Homelands MC/MO*<br />
Tennant Creek MC/MO/ATSI*<br />
Elliott ATSI*<br />
Hobart Registry<br />
Devonport RC/MC<br />
Launceston Rural/Regional Registry JC<br />
Melbourne Registry<br />
Ballarat JC/SRC/RC/MC<br />
Mildura JC/SRC/RC/MC<br />
Warrnambool RC/MC<br />
Bendigo RC/MC<br />
Geelong RC/MC<br />
Albury Rural/Regional Registry JC/SRC/RC<br />
Shepparton MC<br />
Wagga Wagga MC<br />
Wangaratta MC<br />
Newcastle Registry<br />
Taree RC/MC<br />
Port Macquarie RC<br />
Tamworth RC/MC<br />
Parramatta Registry<br />
Bathurst RC<br />
Orange RC<br />
Dubbo Rural/Regional Registry JC/RC<br />
Sydney Registry<br />
Wollongong Rural/Regional Registry<br />
JC/JRC/SRC/RC<br />
Townsville Registry<br />
Mackay JC/RC/MC<br />
Atherton MC<br />
Innisfail MC<br />
Charters Towers MC<br />
Ingham MC<br />
Ayr MC<br />
Bowen MC<br />
Part 2<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 25
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
Hopevale ATSI*<br />
Kowanyama ATSI*<br />
Weipa ATSI*<br />
Bamaga ATSI*<br />
Thursday Island ATSI*<br />
Moa Island ATSI*<br />
Coconut Island ATSI*<br />
Arakun MC/ATSI*<br />
Laura MC/ATSI*<br />
York Island MC/ATSI*<br />
Mapoon ATSI*<br />
Napranum ATSI*<br />
Cairns Rural/Regional Registry JC/RC<br />
Rockhampton Rural/Regional Registry JC/RC<br />
Legend<br />
JC Judicial circuit<br />
JRC Judicial Registrar circuit<br />
RC Registrar circuit<br />
SRC Senior Registrar circuit<br />
MC Mediation circuit<br />
MO Mediation/outreach<br />
ATSI Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander family consultants<br />
* ATSI family consultants (‘Indigenous family liaison <strong>of</strong>ficers’ post 1 July 2006) visit<br />
remote and isolated communities as the need arises. Other locations visited on<br />
<strong>this</strong> basis included Borraloo, Kalkaringi, Timber Creek, Yulara, Pormpuraaw,<br />
Lockhart River, Umagico and Scisia.<br />
26<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Location <strong>of</strong> major services<br />
<br />
<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
••<br />
• •<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
• •<br />
•<br />
• •<br />
•<br />
•<br />
• ■ <br />
• •<br />
Part 2<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
•<br />
•<br />
■ <br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
▲<br />
<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
<br />
•<br />
•<br />
▲<br />
■<br />
•<br />
<br />
•<br />
• ■ <br />
• • • •<br />
•<br />
•<br />
▲<br />
•<br />
■ •<br />
• <br />
•<br />
••<br />
•<br />
• ▲ • <br />
• ■ <br />
<br />
•<br />
• ■ •<br />
•<br />
▲ •<br />
▲ ▲ • • •<br />
•<br />
▲<br />
<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court<br />
▲<br />
■ <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
■<br />
<br />
▲ <br />
• <br />
(NOTE: The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia is a state court separate to the <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia, which does not have original jurisdiction in Western Australia.)<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 27
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE – 30 JUNE 2006<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Overview <strong>of</strong> the court Part 2<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
28<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
Part 3
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
30<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Performance measurement<br />
Introduction<br />
The family law system in Australia is undergoing significant change in line with key<br />
federal government reforms. For example, the first 15 <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Centres<br />
(FRCs) commenced operations on 1 July 2006. The number <strong>of</strong> federal magistrates<br />
in family law also continues to increase while the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> judges has<br />
reduced from 48 to 41 since the introduction <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> in 2000.<br />
Since January 2004, five retired <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> judges have not been replaced. In their<br />
stead, five federal magistrates have been appointed to deal substantially with family<br />
law matters.<br />
The establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Relationship Centres and the growth in numbers <strong>of</strong> federal<br />
magistrates in the family law jurisdiction have refocused the principal function <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia (FCoA). It is clear that the FRCs are intended to resolve family<br />
law disputes outside the court system where that is appropriate. Equally, it is clear that<br />
the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> is intended to deal with the less complex family law<br />
disputes that do not resolve through the intervention <strong>of</strong> community-based service<br />
providers. Accordingly, from 1 July 2006, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> should increasingly deal<br />
with the most complex family law disputes, reducing the emphasis on the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
dispute resolution (mediation) services.<br />
Part 3<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
This significant shift in focus considerably alters the <strong>Court</strong>’s role and purpose. As<br />
Australia’s superior family court and centre for excellence in family law, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> Australia through its specialist judges and staff:<br />
determines cases with complex law and facts including cases with jurisdictional<br />
issues, multiple parties or involving parties who are not parties to the marriage,<br />
bankruptcy cases, and cases with complex commercial and valuation issues<br />
covers specialised areas such as Hague Convention cases, special medical<br />
procedures, serious cases <strong>of</strong> child abuse and international relocation, and<br />
provides national coverage as the appellate court in family law matters.<br />
The figures presented in <strong>this</strong> <strong>report</strong> relate only to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> (i.e. the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> figures are excluded even though the FCoA continues to expend a<br />
significant amount <strong>of</strong> administration and pr<strong>of</strong>essional resource effort supporting that<br />
<strong>Court</strong>). In particular the ‘entry’ functions, such as filing applications and allocating<br />
first return dates, for both <strong>Court</strong>s is wholly undertaken by <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> resources. In<br />
addition, staff <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> conduct mediation and conciliation conferences and<br />
prepare <strong>Family</strong> Reports in some Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> cases. These facts should be<br />
considered when interpreting the figures in <strong>this</strong> <strong>report</strong>.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 31
Data quality<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia’s new case management system,<br />
Casetrack, a single system to replace a number <strong>of</strong> legacy systems, was a major<br />
achievement. However, such a large undertaking has meant the <strong>Court</strong> experienced<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> data completeness and accuracy issues. The <strong>Court</strong> has identified areas<br />
to improve its data completeness and has undertaken a Data Quality Action Plan.<br />
The project has been ongoing for more than 10 months and in that time has made<br />
significant improvements to data accuracy and completeness. As a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong><br />
‘cleaner’ data, the financial figures from previous years have been refreshed. For <strong>this</strong><br />
reason some figures in <strong>this</strong> section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong> may differ from those published in<br />
previous annual <strong>report</strong>s.<br />
Output structure<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s output structure and performance measures are detailed in Portfolio<br />
Budget Statement 2005-2006, Attorney-General’s portfolio, pp 273-277.<br />
These performance measures are currently under review as a result <strong>of</strong> the reforms to<br />
the family law system which will lead to significant changes to the overall complexity <strong>of</strong><br />
cases in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the processes for handling them.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has two output groups, or phases:<br />
Resolution<br />
Determination<br />
The total workload in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia comprises both <strong>of</strong> the above phases.<br />
32<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 1 shows the total number <strong>of</strong> applications that initiate work filed in the <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia during 2005-06. The <strong>Court</strong> undertakes cases for Final Applications,<br />
Applications in a Case (Interim), Consent, and Other applications. The ‘Other applications’<br />
category includes Contravention, Contempt, Hague Convention, Maintenance and<br />
Divorce applications.<br />
Figure 1: Total number <strong>of</strong> filings<br />
Interim, 11263, 32%<br />
Other, 1163, 3%<br />
Consent, 11746, 34%<br />
Final, 10894, 31%<br />
Total = 35066<br />
Part 3<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
Figure 2 displays all applications filed, finalised and pending over the past three<br />
financial years.<br />
Figure 2: Total incoming, finalised and pending applications by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 33
Output Group 1.1 Resolution<br />
Providing dispute resolution services to assist separated families to:<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
reach agreements about the future residence and contact arrangements for their<br />
children, and<br />
resolve financial cases without litigation.<br />
Consent Orders<br />
Many families do not require the direct services <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> to resolve their disputes<br />
and will <strong>of</strong>ten come to an agreement on their own or perhaps with help from other<br />
people or organisations. If families are able to reach an agreement then they may seek<br />
to have that agreement made binding by the <strong>Court</strong>. This is done by filing an Application<br />
for Consent Orders. These orders are typically approved by a registrar.<br />
Figure 3 shows Application for Consent Orders filed in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, for each state,<br />
for the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 3: Applications for Consent Orders filed by state<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
34<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 4 displays the applications for Consent Orders filed, finalised and pending<br />
nationally in the past three fiscal years.<br />
Figure 4: Incoming, finalised and pending consent orders applications by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 3<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance<br />
<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> aims to have 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> valid and correctly lodged Consent Orders<br />
applications approved and finalised within one month <strong>of</strong> being filed. During 2005–06<br />
the <strong>Court</strong> finalised 89 per cent <strong>of</strong> applications within one month, and 90 per cent within<br />
1.1 months.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
MEDIATED AGREEMENTS<br />
Mediated agreements are outputs <strong>of</strong> the resolution process. Families may reach an<br />
agreement or settle their case during the resolution process a result <strong>of</strong> using one or<br />
more <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s services. These services comprise:<br />
case assessment conferencing as an early intervention strategy to better assess the<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> families in dispute, narrow and define the issues in dispute, and tailor the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> future services accordingly<br />
mediation in cases affecting children, and<br />
conciliation conferencing in property disputes.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 35
Performance<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s case management guidelines indicate that it aims to have 75 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
final orders cases resolved through mediated agreement. Figure 5 shows the percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> cases that were resolved by mediated agreement for the past three financial<br />
years. The <strong>Court</strong> aims to have 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> mediated agreement cases resolved<br />
within six months <strong>of</strong> filing. During 2005-06 the <strong>Court</strong> finalised 69 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
mediated agreements within six months, and 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> mediated agreements in<br />
13.9 months.<br />
Figure 5: Percentage <strong>of</strong> cases resolved through Mediated Agreements by<br />
financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proportion <strong>of</strong> more complex cases in the workload <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
has increased as the intake <strong>of</strong> simpler cases in the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> has grown.<br />
In addition to these cases being more complex, the parties involved tend to be more<br />
entrenched in their disputes and are therefore less likely to resolve and more likely to<br />
require a judicial decision. These factors make it more difficult for the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> to<br />
achieve 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases being resolved by mediated agreement.<br />
Output Group 1.2 Determination<br />
DIVORCES<br />
An agreement reached in 2003 between the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong> provided that from 13 November 2003 all Applications for Divorce should be<br />
filed in the FMC (Practice Direction No. 6 <strong>of</strong> 2003). The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> agreed, however,<br />
36<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
to continue to conduct 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> divorces on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong>, primarily in circuit locations. In recent years more than 99 per cent <strong>of</strong> divorce<br />
applications have been filed in the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Figure 6 shows divorce applications filed, by state, in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia over<br />
the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 6: Applications for Divorce filed by state<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 3<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
Figure 7 displays the Applications for Divorce filed, finalised and pending in each <strong>of</strong> the<br />
past three fiscal years.<br />
Figure 7: Incoming, finalised and pending Applications for Divorce by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 37
Since very few divorce applications are initiated in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, the performance<br />
for divorces is not valid or significant, and is therefore not presented in <strong>this</strong> <strong>report</strong>.<br />
APPLICATIONS IN A CASE – INTERIM ORDERS<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
Clients may seek to have interim, procedural, ancillary and miscellaneous orders made<br />
by the <strong>Court</strong> while awaiting a final hearing <strong>of</strong> their Application for Final Orders. Since<br />
29 March 2004, in accordance with the <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004, these orders are sought<br />
through an Application in a Case. This application is an expansion <strong>of</strong> the previous<br />
Interim Orders application and now includes issues such as enforcement summons,<br />
appeals <strong>of</strong> summary jurisdiction and costs.<br />
The filing figures for Applications in a Case however, are not directly comparable to<br />
interim orders applications <strong>of</strong> previous years and figures prior to 2004-05 have been<br />
provided as a guide only to the changes in <strong>this</strong> type <strong>of</strong> workload.<br />
Figure 8 shows the Applications in a Case (interim orders) filed by state, over the past<br />
three financial years.<br />
Figure 8: Applications in a Case filed by state, over the past three financial years<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
38<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 9 displays the Applications in a Case (interim orders) filed, finalised and pending<br />
nationally for the past three <strong>report</strong>ing years.<br />
Figure 9: Incoming, finalised and pending Applications in a Case by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> aims to finalise 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> Applications in a Case within three months <strong>of</strong><br />
being filed. During 2005-06 the <strong>Court</strong> finalised 66 per cent <strong>of</strong> applications within three<br />
months, and 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> applications within eight months.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 3<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
FINAL ORDERS<br />
Applications for Final Orders are considered the substantive work <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
because they require the most significant effort by <strong>Court</strong> resources to resolve or<br />
determine. If these applications are not resolved during the resolution phase they<br />
begin preparation for final determination by a judge (or judicial registrar) at trial. The<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> Applications for Final Orders made in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia have<br />
continued to be resolved through the intervention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s mediation services<br />
without proceeding to judicial determination. Additionally, many <strong>of</strong> the cases which<br />
enter the determination phase also settle, leaving only a small proportion <strong>of</strong> cases<br />
proceeding to final hearing and judgment.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 39
Figure 10 shows the Applications for Final Orders lodged with the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, by<br />
state, for the financial years from 2003–04 to 2005–06.<br />
Figure 10: Applications for Final Orders filed by state<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 11 displays the Applications for Final Orders filed, finalised and pending<br />
nationally for the past three financial years.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 11: Incoming, finalised and pending Applications for Final Orders by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
40<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 12 shows the number <strong>of</strong> cases at trail that are finalised by either judicial<br />
determination or settlement, in each <strong>of</strong> the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 12: Number <strong>of</strong> cases finalised at trial by type <strong>of</strong> finalisation<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 3<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
Performance<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> aims to have 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> Final Orders applications finalised within<br />
12 months. Figure 13 displays the <strong>Court</strong>’s performance against <strong>this</strong> target over the<br />
past three financial years.<br />
Figure 13: Overall months to finalise 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> Applications for Final Orders<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 41
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> also aims to have 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases that enter the determination phase<br />
finalised within six months <strong>of</strong> being issued with a trial notice. A case enters the<br />
determination phase when all immediate options for resolution have been exhausted<br />
and it becomes necessary to prepare the case for trial. During 2005-06 the <strong>Court</strong><br />
finalised 41 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases issued with a trial notice within six months. Seventy-five<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> cases were finalised within 11.4 months, after a trial notice was issued.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> factors have affected the <strong>Court</strong>’s ability to meet its targets for disposing<br />
cases in the determination phase. These include delays in the replacement <strong>of</strong> retired<br />
judges during 2004 and 2005, and the increasing proportion <strong>of</strong> complex cases handled<br />
by the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
It is also important to consider that at any one time there is a large number <strong>of</strong> cases<br />
pending (active) in the determination phase. This is referred to as the Pending Cases<br />
Inventory (PCI). The <strong>Court</strong> must continue to reduce the backlog <strong>of</strong> older cases in its PCI<br />
before there is improved performance against the targets. Figure 14 shows the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> cases entering, finalising and pending in the determination phase.<br />
Figure 14: Incoming, finalised and pending final orders applications<br />
(determination phase) by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
42<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
TYPICAL PATHWAY OF FINAL ORDERS APPLICATIONS<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> continues to monitor its caseload over a longitudinal timeframe. That is, it<br />
reviews how its cases have progressed and settled at its varying case management<br />
stages from start to finish. This provides the <strong>Court</strong> with evidence about the effect that<br />
different case management events may have on cases. All but a small proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
cases that commence in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> are finalised within two years.<br />
Figure 15 shows the attrition rates and stages at which cases were finalised in the<br />
two‐financial year periods, 2003-05 and 2004-06.<br />
Part 3<br />
Figure 15: Attrition <strong>of</strong> cases from filing to finalisation<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance<br />
<br />
The outward shift <strong>of</strong> both lines further highlights the <strong>Court</strong>’s increased proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> complex cases that now have a higher propensity, and likelihood, to remain on<br />
a litigious path and progress to the determination phase and ultimately judicial<br />
judgment.<br />
Self-represented litigants<br />
For the past several years the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia has accepted and understood<br />
that a large proportion <strong>of</strong> its clients will not have legal representation. In 2002-03 the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s Self-Represented Litigants Committee released a <strong>report</strong> on the achievements<br />
<strong>of</strong> the first two years <strong>of</strong> its project to better assist clients’ use and understanding <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s services. In 2003-04 the <strong>Court</strong> established a working group including<br />
representatives <strong>of</strong> key external bodies, such as Legal Aid, other courts and the legal<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession, to work in partnership to continue to deliver better services for selfrepresented<br />
litigants.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 43
Figure 16 provides an indication <strong>of</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> legal representation in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>,<br />
during the life <strong>of</strong> a case. Figure 17 shows the level <strong>of</strong> representation specifically at trial<br />
over the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 16: Percentage <strong>of</strong> final orders applications by representation status<br />
Report on <strong>Court</strong> performance Part 3<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 17: Percentage <strong>of</strong> trials by representation status<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The figures show that the proportion <strong>of</strong> cases in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> that are represented<br />
during the life <strong>of</strong> the case, and particularly at the trial, is increasing. This further reflects<br />
that the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is dealing with a growing number <strong>of</strong> complex cases,<br />
and indicates that parties, because <strong>of</strong> the complexity <strong>of</strong> their cases, are more likely to<br />
engage legal representatives.<br />
44<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Appeals<br />
Part 4
Appeals Part 4<br />
46<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Appeal Division<br />
The Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is constituted by three or more judges<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, the majority <strong>of</strong> whom are required to be members <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division<br />
(<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 ss.4 and 21A). The members <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> are<br />
the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and such other judges, not exceeding nine in<br />
number, as are assigned to the Appeal Division.<br />
As at 30 June 2006, the judges assigned to the Appeal Division were:<br />
Justice Finn<br />
Justice Kay<br />
Justice Holden (Chief Judge <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia)<br />
Justice Coleman<br />
Justice Warnick<br />
Justice May<br />
Justice Boland<br />
Part 4<br />
Appeals<br />
Appeals<br />
The right <strong>of</strong> appeal and the powers <strong>of</strong> the Full <strong>Court</strong> on appeal are set out in Part X <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, in Part VIII <strong>of</strong> the Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988<br />
and Part 7 <strong>of</strong> the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.<br />
An appeal lies to the Full <strong>Court</strong> from a decree <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, constituted otherwise<br />
than as a Full <strong>Court</strong>, exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act.<br />
An appeal also lies to the Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> from a decree <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> a state (i.e. the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia) or the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> a<br />
state or a territory, constituted by a single judge exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Act.<br />
An appeal also lies to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia from a decree <strong>of</strong> the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> in relation to such appeals is to be<br />
exercised by a Full <strong>Court</strong> unless the Chief Justice considers that it is appropriate for the<br />
jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the court in relation to such an appeal to be exercised by a single judge<br />
(<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, s.94AAA(3)).<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> sittings<br />
During 2005-06, the Full <strong>Court</strong> sat for 29 weeks (or part weeks). Appeals are also heard<br />
by way <strong>of</strong> video-link from time to time.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 47
Administration <strong>of</strong> appeals<br />
Appeals are administered by an Appeals Registrar in three areas, namely:<br />
Appeals Part 4<br />
Northern which covers Queensland, Northern Territory and northern New South<br />
Wales<br />
Eastern which covers the balance <strong>of</strong> New South Wales and the Australian Capital<br />
Territory, and<br />
Southern which covers Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.<br />
In addition, there is a nominated registrar to locally administer appeals in each major<br />
registry <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. Western Australia is separately administered by a registrar <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
Replacement <strong>of</strong> appeals information system<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>, during the first quarter <strong>of</strong> 2006–07, will replace its system for monitoring<br />
appeals, the Appeals Information System, and commence using its case management<br />
system, Casetrack, to manage its appeal work.<br />
General trends in appeals<br />
The activities <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division <strong>report</strong>ed upon under the existing system do<br />
not permit an accurate calculation <strong>of</strong> the time spent on a number <strong>of</strong> matters which<br />
significantly impinge upon the Appeal Division’s ability to hear and determine appeals.<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> interlocutory applications in the Appeal Division is increasing. These<br />
include, but are not limited to, applications for security for costs in relation to the<br />
appeal, applications for summary dismissal <strong>of</strong> an appeal, applications for the admission<br />
<strong>of</strong> new evidence (the Allesch v Mauntz requirement) and applications for costs.<br />
In addition, during the <strong>report</strong>ing year judges <strong>of</strong> the Appeal Division have been<br />
engaged in dealing with procedural hearings which are essentially directions hearings<br />
for appellants. Due particularly to the numbers <strong>of</strong> appellants who are self-represented<br />
litigants, <strong>this</strong> task is both time consuming and difficult.<br />
48<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 18 shows the Appeal Notices filed, finalised, and those pending with the Full<br />
<strong>Court</strong> Appeals Division for the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 18: Appeals filed, finalised and pending by financial year<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 4<br />
Appeals<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 19 indicates the proportion <strong>of</strong> filings that were a result <strong>of</strong> decrees made in the<br />
Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Figure 19: Proportion <strong>of</strong> appeals filed by jurisdiction<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 49
The <strong>Court</strong> heard 83 appeals, other than appeals from decrees made in the Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, during the year. Of those appeals 37 (45 per cent) were allowed and<br />
46 (55 per cent) were dismissed.<br />
Figure 20 details the disposal <strong>of</strong> appeal cases.<br />
Appeals Part 4<br />
Figure 20: Appeals finalised in 2005-06 by finalisation type<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In addition, the <strong>Court</strong> heard 46 appeals from decrees <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong>, <strong>of</strong> which 22 (48 per cent) were allowed and 24 (52 per cent) were dismissed. A<br />
further 24 appeals were abandoned, only one <strong>of</strong> which was an appeal from the<br />
Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>, and 59 appeals were withdrawn, <strong>of</strong> which 32 were appeals<br />
from the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The total number <strong>of</strong> appeals disposed <strong>of</strong> during<br />
the year was 212.<br />
50<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Figure 21 illustrates the appeals disposed <strong>of</strong> in the past three financial years.<br />
Figure 21: Appeals finalised by financial year and finalisation type<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Part 4<br />
Appeals<br />
There were 14 applications for leave to appeal filed during the year, including four<br />
relating to decrees made by the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> heard<br />
10 applications for leave to appeal during the year, half <strong>of</strong> which were allowed,<br />
including two from a decree made in the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. The remaining<br />
five applications for leave were dismissed, including one from a decree made in<br />
the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>. In addition, four such applications were withdrawn<br />
(including two from a decree made in the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>). At 30 June<br />
2006, 37 applications for leave to appeal were outstanding, comprising three for<br />
which judgment was reserved and 34 awaiting hearing.<br />
Other significant matters to be drawn from the statistics include:<br />
property/financial matters were an issue in 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> appeals filed<br />
residence, interim residence, contact, interim contact and specific issues were in<br />
question in 42 per cent <strong>of</strong> appeals filed<br />
37 per cent <strong>of</strong> appellants were female and 55 per cent were male (the remaining<br />
eight per cent were corporate entities or statutory authorities), and<br />
41 per cent <strong>of</strong> appellants were self-represented.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 51
Figure 22: Issues raised in appeals 2005-06<br />
Appeals Part 4<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 23: Appellants by gender and self-representation<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
52<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Performance<br />
The Appeals Division <strong>of</strong> the Full <strong>Court</strong> aims to finalise 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> appeals within six<br />
months <strong>of</strong> filing.<br />
Figure 24 shows the <strong>Court</strong>’s performance against <strong>this</strong> target for the past three financial<br />
years.<br />
Figure 24: Months to finalise 25 per cent and 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> appeals<br />
Part 4<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Appeals<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Appeals to the High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
Section 95 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act provides that an appeal does not lie to the High <strong>Court</strong><br />
from a decree <strong>of</strong> a court exercising jurisdiction under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, whether<br />
original or appellate, except by special leave <strong>of</strong> the High <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
During the year, 14 applications for special leave to appeal were filed in the High<br />
<strong>Court</strong> from judgments <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> (10 from Sydney Registry and four from<br />
Melbourne Registry).<br />
Also during the year, 10 applications for special leave were determined by the High<br />
<strong>Court</strong> (six from Sydney and four from Melbourne). All 10 were refused.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 53
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Part 5
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
56<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Significant judgments<br />
In the past year, judges <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia have handed down a series <strong>of</strong><br />
judgments at both first instance and appellate levels which reflect the <strong>Court</strong>’s broad<br />
jurisdiction and the variety <strong>of</strong> issues the <strong>Court</strong> faces.<br />
(NOTE: The following headnotes and comment on leading cases were contributed by<br />
CCH <strong>Family</strong> Law Editors.)<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> Judgments<br />
Child abduction — Father residing in USA — Mother and child residing in USA for<br />
short period — Whether mother’s intention <strong>of</strong> residing with father for purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> deciding whether their relationship would ‘work out’ could constitute a<br />
settled intention or purpose — Whether child was habitually resident in the USA<br />
immediately before the child departed the USA<br />
DW v Director General, Department <strong>of</strong> Child Safety [2006] FamCA 93, (2006)<br />
FLC 93-255, (2006) 34 FamLR 656, 28 February 2006<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Finn, Holden and May JJ<br />
The mother appealed an order which provided that her very young child be removed<br />
from Australia to the USA where the father resided.<br />
Prior to the child’s birth, the parents resided together in the USA from May 2003 until<br />
February 2004 when the mother returned alone to Australia. The child was born in<br />
Australia in May 2004. In July 2004, the mother returned to the USA with the child and<br />
moved into the father’s home. In October 2004, the mother left the father and went<br />
with the child to a women’s shelter before returning with the child to Australia several<br />
days later.<br />
The trial Judge had found that the mother arrived in the USA with the child intent on<br />
resuming her relationship with the father and seeing how it ‘worked out’, and that<br />
within a few weeks <strong>of</strong> arrival the mother was residing with the father with the settled<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> deciding whether she would persevere with that arrangement in the<br />
long term.<br />
Counsel for the mother submitted that the trial Judge’s findings were not open to him<br />
and even if they were, they could not support his ultimate conclusion that the child was<br />
habitually resident in the USA immediately prior to its departure.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 57
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Held: Appeal allowed (Holden J dissenting).<br />
1. The findings were open to the trial Judge.<br />
2. The adoption <strong>of</strong> the three principles in the English case <strong>of</strong> Re B (Minors) (Abduction)<br />
(No 2) [1993] 1 FLR 993 by the Full <strong>Court</strong> in Cooper v Casey (1995) FLC 92-575 was<br />
noted, that is:<br />
a. The habitual residence <strong>of</strong> the young children <strong>of</strong> parents who are living<br />
together is the same as the habitual residence <strong>of</strong> the parents themselves and<br />
neither party can change it without the express or tacit consent <strong>of</strong> the other<br />
or order <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
b. Habitual residence is a term referring, when it is applied in the context <strong>of</strong><br />
married parents living together, to their abode in a particular place or country,<br />
which they have adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
regular order <strong>of</strong> their life for the time being, whether it is <strong>of</strong> short or long<br />
duration. All that the law requires for a ‘settled purpose’ is that the parents’<br />
shared intentions in living where they do should have a sufficient degree <strong>of</strong><br />
continuity about them to be properly described as settled.<br />
c. Although habitual residence can be lost in a single day, for example upon<br />
departure from the initial abode with no intention <strong>of</strong> returning, the assumption <strong>of</strong><br />
habitual residence requires an appreciable period <strong>of</strong> time and a settled intention.<br />
Repatriation <strong>of</strong> child — Child residing with father in Australia when father died<br />
— Mother in New Zealand sought repatriation <strong>of</strong> child through Central Authority<br />
against wishes <strong>of</strong> paternal grandparents and aunt — Whether trial Judge had<br />
misdirected himself in determining there was not a ‘grave risk’ that the return <strong>of</strong> the<br />
child to New Zealand would expose him to psychological harm — <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
(Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) Reg 16(3) and (5)<br />
Bennett & ORS v Secretary, Attorney General’s Department [2006] FamCA 59,<br />
(2006) FLC 93-252, 16 February 2006<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Coleman, Boland and Mushin JJ<br />
The child lived with his father in Australia with the consent <strong>of</strong> his mother who lived in<br />
New Zealand. When the father died, the child was living with his paternal grandparents<br />
and at the date <strong>of</strong> the hearing with his paternal aunt in Australia. Through the Central<br />
Authority, the mother sought the repatriation <strong>of</strong> the child to New Zealand.<br />
At first instance, the trial Judge considered, amongst other issues, whether there<br />
existed a “grave risk” to the child <strong>of</strong> exposure to psychological harm or if he would be<br />
placed in an intolerable position on a return to New Zealand. Further, whether the child<br />
objected to being returned and if that was the case, whether those objections went<br />
beyond a mere expression <strong>of</strong> preference. The trial Judge found that whilst there was a<br />
58<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
isk <strong>of</strong> psychological harm to the child or <strong>of</strong> him being placed in an intolerable situation<br />
if he was returned to New Zealand, it was not a grave risk as required by the relevant<br />
Regulation unless:<br />
there was no procedure in New Zealand by which orders could be sought to guard<br />
against that risk<br />
the appellants could not seek orders there, or<br />
there was a risk that the mother would not abide by any orders made in New Zealand.<br />
The trial Judge found that none <strong>of</strong> the above conditions had been met and therefore<br />
there was no grave risk.<br />
The paternal grandparents and aunt appealed, with the Central Authority resisting.<br />
Counsel for the appellants submitted that:<br />
the trial Judge misdirected himself to matters in determining the gravity <strong>of</strong> risk to<br />
which he was not entitled to, which made it impossible for the appellants to raise a<br />
defence, and which effectively delegated the proper responsibility <strong>of</strong> the Australian<br />
<strong>Court</strong>s to New Zealand<br />
the trial Judge erred in failing to have regard to the unchallenged expert evidence<br />
that there was an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> psychological harm or being placed in an<br />
intolerable situation in his determination <strong>of</strong> whether or not there was a grave risk <strong>of</strong><br />
such harm, and<br />
the expert's use <strong>of</strong> the word ‘unacceptable’ was synonymous with ‘grave’.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Held: Appeal allowed and remitted for re-hearing.<br />
1. It is difficult to see how the three matters the trial Judge directed himself to would<br />
reduce or impact upon the gravity <strong>of</strong> risk or how, in a case <strong>of</strong> psychological (rather<br />
than physical) harm, the trial Judge’s test could ever be met.<br />
2. While the expert evidence was less than entirely clear it was not incapable <strong>of</strong><br />
supporting a finding that there was a ‘grave risk’. Given that it was admissible and<br />
unchallenged, the trial Judge’s failure to have regard to it vitiated the determination<br />
<strong>of</strong> the issue <strong>of</strong> ‘grave risk’.<br />
3. While the evidence could have supported a finding that there was a ‘grave risk’, it was<br />
not the only conclusion available. The expert had not been given the opportunity to<br />
assess the gravity <strong>of</strong> the risk in cross-examination.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 59
Whether <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia was a ‘clearly inappropriate forum’ when<br />
proceedings were already on foot in Hong Kong — Test for clearly inappropriate<br />
forum — Whether Australian proceedings were ‘vexatious and oppressive’.<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Cashel v Carr [2005] FamCA 765, (2005) FLC 93-232, (2005) 34 FamLR 256,<br />
17 August 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Bryant CJ, Coleman and Boland JJ.<br />
The husband applied for leave to appeal against orders made by the trial Judge<br />
dismissing his application for a stay <strong>of</strong> proceedings. In dismissing the husband’s stay<br />
application in the relation to the Australian proceedings, the trial Judge applied the<br />
‘clearly inappropriate forum’ test (Henry v Henry (1996) FLC 92-685) in relation to the<br />
question <strong>of</strong> whether the proceedings in the Australian <strong>Court</strong> were ‘oppressive, in the<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> “seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging” or, vexatious’.<br />
In reaching his decision, the trial Judge noted the wife took no part in the Hong Kong<br />
proceedings other than to seek a stay, indicating she did not embrace the jurisdiction<br />
<strong>of</strong> both courts.<br />
The parties commenced cohabitation in the late 1980s in Australia and married in<br />
1991 in Hong Kong where they lived until separation in January 2002. After separation,<br />
the wife returned to live in Australia and the husband remained in Hong Kong. Both<br />
parties were Australian citizens. The parties jointly owned two properties in Australia<br />
and a property in Hong Kong in the husband’s sole name. The husband also had<br />
superannuation outside <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
In June 2004, the husband applied to the District <strong>Court</strong> in Hong Kong for dissolution <strong>of</strong><br />
the marriage and ancillary relief, including property settlement. In September 2004 the<br />
wife applied in Hong Kong for a stay <strong>of</strong> the proceedings. A temporary stay was granted<br />
pending the hearing <strong>of</strong> the wife’s stay application. On 14 October 2004, the wife filed<br />
an application for property settlement orders in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia. The<br />
husband responded with an application seeking to restrain the wife from continuing<br />
those proceedings. On 5 January 2005, the wife’s stay application in Hong Kong was<br />
dismissed. Leave was granted to the wife to appeal the decision on condition that she<br />
took no further steps in relation to the divorce and/or property settlement proceedings<br />
in Australia.<br />
Held: Appeal dismissed.<br />
1. ‘We are not persuaded that the trial Judge failed to regard as “highly relevant to<br />
the question <strong>of</strong> whether the local proceedings” were oppressive, any <strong>of</strong> the matters<br />
relied upon by counsel for the husband.’ His Honour appreciated that the likely<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> refusing a stay was the continuation <strong>of</strong> both sets <strong>of</strong> proceedings.<br />
2. All facts and circumstances said to be relevant to the issues before his Honour were<br />
identified and considered by him.<br />
60<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
3. The factors identified by the husband allegedly given insufficient weight did not<br />
hold decisive weight in favour <strong>of</strong> either party. Both parties had a connection to both<br />
Australia and Hong Kong. Also, though it may have been difficult for the husband<br />
to participate to the same extent in proceedings in Australia, the converse was true<br />
for the wife in relation to the proceedings in Hong Kong. It was not established his<br />
Honour failed to have regard to any issue <strong>of</strong> relevance in the proceedings.<br />
4. ‘[O]ther than by concluding that to refuse to stay the Australian proceedings and<br />
thereby deprive the husband <strong>of</strong> the potential benefit <strong>of</strong> having been the first to<br />
commence proceedings, nothing to which we have been referred would render<br />
allowing the proceedings to continue in Australia: “oppressive in the sense <strong>of</strong><br />
seriously or unfairly burdensome, prejudicial or damaging or vexatious in the<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> being productive <strong>of</strong> serious and unjustifiable trouble and harassments to<br />
the husband”... The failure to have regard to that factor as having that significance<br />
does not in our view render the trial Judge’s construction <strong>of</strong> the “objectives”<br />
“narrow” or “rigid”.’<br />
5. It was within his Honour’s ambit <strong>of</strong> discretion to refuse the stay order sought by<br />
the husband.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Property adjustment — Superannuation — Husband’s statutory superannuation<br />
scheme — Change in the governing statute between hearing and judgment —<br />
Whether correct law applied — Whether form <strong>of</strong> orders defective — Contributions<br />
— Impact <strong>of</strong> husband’s violent conduct on contributions.<br />
Stevens v Stevens [2005] FamCA 1304, (2005) FLC 93-246, 15 November 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Finn, Coleman and Warnick JJ<br />
The husband and the wife applied for property adjustment in the Federal Magistrates<br />
<strong>Court</strong>. The judgment was reserved for 13 months as a change in the law relating to the<br />
husband’s statutory superannuation scheme was anticipated at the time <strong>of</strong> the hearing.<br />
The parties were married for 16 years and had two children. The wife, aged 40, was<br />
the primary homemaker and parent, and the husband, aged 42, made greater<br />
contributions from income. The husband had an interest in the Commonwealth<br />
Superannuation Scheme (Comsuper), governed by the provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Superannuation Act 1976 (the Act). Nine months after the hearing before the Federal<br />
Magistrate and four months before judgment was handed down, an amendment to<br />
the Act came into effect. The Federal Magistrate had heard expert evidence on the<br />
anticipated change during the hearing.<br />
The contributions <strong>of</strong> the parties were assessed by the Federal Magistrate as equal,<br />
taking into account a five per cent adjustment in the husband’s favour for financial<br />
contributions and an adjustment <strong>of</strong> five per cent in the wife’s favour due to the<br />
husband’s violent conduct towards her.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 61
The husband appealed, submitting that:<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
because the Federal Magistrate made no reference to the amendments to the Act in<br />
her judgment it ought be concluded that she did not apply the correct law<br />
having regard to the effect <strong>of</strong> the amendments to the Act the Federal Magistrate<br />
ought to have made the operative time <strong>of</strong> the superannuation splitting orders the<br />
date <strong>of</strong> valuation not four days after the date <strong>of</strong> the orders, because the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
the amendments was to include post-separation contributions made solely by the<br />
husband in calculating the wife's entitlement under the splitting orders, and<br />
the circumstances required by Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 in relation to<br />
taking violent conduct into account had not been made out on the evidence.<br />
Further submissions were made after the decisions in Coghlan v Coghlan (2005)<br />
FLC 93‐220, Wilkinson v Wilkinson (2005) FLC 93-222, Ilett v Ilett (2005) FLC 93-221 and<br />
Casey v Braione-Howard and DFRDBA (2005) FLC 93-219 were handed down, that:<br />
there were three technical defects in the splitting orders:<br />
a. a failure to identify the ‘type’ <strong>of</strong> order made<br />
b. the order was expressed as ‘shall be split’ rather than by reference to splitting<br />
payments, and<br />
c. the orders sought wrongly to bind the trustee to matters beyond their obligations.<br />
Appeal allowed in part.<br />
1. The mere fact <strong>of</strong> change in the law without evidence <strong>of</strong> disadvantage to the<br />
husband meant that there was no reason for the Federal Magistrate to discuss the<br />
amendments to the Act in her judgment. Her failure to do so did not mean she<br />
was unaware <strong>of</strong> the change. Her Honour had not fallen into appealable error in the<br />
circumstances <strong>of</strong> the case.<br />
2. As neither party sought orders that the date <strong>of</strong> valuation be the operative time <strong>of</strong><br />
the splitting orders, not to so order was not an appealable error on the part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Federal Magistrate.<br />
3. The findings were open to the Federal Magistrate on the evidence. To establish a<br />
course <strong>of</strong> conduct under Kennon does not require frequent conduct although a<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> repetition is required.<br />
4. The form <strong>of</strong> orders to be amended in accordance with the submissions.<br />
62<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Property adjustment — Superannuation — Appeal against orders providing all<br />
non‐superannuation assets to one party — Whether not making a superannuation<br />
splitting order was just and equitable.<br />
Doherty v Doherty [2006] FamCA 199, (2006) FLC 93-256, 17 March 2006<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Warnick, May and Boland JJ.<br />
In competing applications for property, the Federal Magistrate divided the property <strong>of</strong><br />
the parties as to 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband, and ordered<br />
that <strong>of</strong> the two major assets, the wife receive her entitlement by retaining the family<br />
home, and the husband nearly all <strong>of</strong> his by retaining his superannuation entitlements.<br />
On appeal, counsel for the husband submitted that the Federal Magistrate had erred<br />
when considering the justice and equity <strong>of</strong> the orders to be made by allowing the wife<br />
to retain all immediately tangible assets.<br />
Held: Appeal dismissed.<br />
1. Since the availability <strong>of</strong> Orders to share superannuation entitlements, consideration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the constitution or ‘mix’ <strong>of</strong> the assets with which each party will be left as a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> proposed orders would seem a necessary, if not critical, factor in determining the<br />
justice and equity <strong>of</strong> proposed orders in each case in which superannuation interests<br />
are involved.<br />
2. However, in the absence <strong>of</strong> evidence in support <strong>of</strong> the orders sought by the husband<br />
and in the absence <strong>of</strong> submissions on his behalf in support <strong>of</strong> the form <strong>of</strong> orders, the<br />
decision <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrate was well open to her.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Children — Relocation — Orders restricting the uncontested residence parent<br />
from relocating interstate — Failure to consider alternative contact arrangements<br />
to those proposed by the parties or the child representative — Principles relating<br />
to relocation.<br />
Powell v Ptolemy and Children’s Representative [2005] FamCA 1032, (2005)<br />
FLC 93-239, (2005) 34 FamLR 340, 31 October 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Finn, May and Boland JJ<br />
This was an appeal by the mother against orders in relation to contact arrangements<br />
which prevented the mother from relocating to Bundaberg, 100km from the father’s<br />
residence in Lismore.<br />
There were two children <strong>of</strong> the parties’ marriage, namely G and J aged eight and five<br />
respectively at the time <strong>of</strong> the hearing. The facts were in large part agreed. The father<br />
had been abusive towards the mother, members <strong>of</strong> the mother’s family and the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 63
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
children. The parties agreed the children would live with the mother who had also<br />
been the sole breadwinner. Evidence suggested the father did not adequately care for<br />
the children during the marriage and excessively consumed alcohol and marijuana.<br />
Prior to the hearing, the father had taken various courses in an attempt to address his<br />
unacceptable behaviours and had not been violent towards the children for two years.<br />
His Honour made a finding that the father presented no risk to the children. Despite <strong>this</strong><br />
finding, supervised contact was ordered for 12 months in order to appease the fears <strong>of</strong><br />
the mother and to protect the father’s credibility.<br />
At the hearing, the mother proposed she move to Bundaberg with the children and the<br />
children have supervised contact to their father on about 18 various days throughout<br />
the year, including Christmas and Boxing Day. Should the mother remain in Lismore,<br />
her proposal then resulted in the children having contact to the father for 30 days.<br />
The father sought orders that the mother not be permitted to relocate and that<br />
he have alternate weekend contact to the children from after school Fridays to the<br />
commencement <strong>of</strong> school on Mondays and for one half <strong>of</strong> each school holiday period<br />
as well as some additional times on special days.<br />
His Honour noted the good relationship the children had with both parents and<br />
the adverse impact <strong>of</strong> limited contact as proposed by the mother. His Honour<br />
also considered further issues in relation to the mother’s proposed relocation,<br />
including the shyness <strong>of</strong> G, the expense and difficulty in travel in circumstances<br />
where the parties were <strong>of</strong> limited financial means and the fact that the parties did<br />
not communicate well. His Honour was critical <strong>of</strong> the mother in her propensity to<br />
denigrate the father in the children’s presence, finding that the mother would make<br />
little effort to encourage the children’s relationship with the father in Lismore and<br />
even more so should the mother live with the children in Bundaberg.<br />
The basis <strong>of</strong> the mother’s appeal was that the trial Judge failed to give adequate<br />
reasons for his decisions and the reasons that were provided did not ‘reveal<br />
a discernible path <strong>of</strong> reasoning’ for restraining the mother from relocating to<br />
Bundaberg. The mother also submitted that the trial Judge failed to consider<br />
the principles to be applied in relocation cases including alternative contact<br />
arrangements to those proposed by the parties.<br />
The child representative supported the mother’s relocation, though proposed<br />
alternative and more extensive contact arrangements to those proposed by the mother.<br />
He submitted that his Honour failed to apply the relevant law in that alternative contact<br />
arrangements which allowed the relocation would have been possible, but were not<br />
canvassed by his Honour at the trial.<br />
64<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Held: Appeal allowed. Remitted for retrial.<br />
1. Given that the trial Judge did not indicate he was minded to grant unsupervised<br />
contact, it would have been difficult for the parties to have considered and dealt<br />
with, at the time <strong>of</strong> the trial, alternative proposals which addressed such a scenario.<br />
2. The court’s paramount consideration is <strong>of</strong> the children’s welfare; however, ‘the<br />
“paramount” consideration is not the same as the “sole” or “only” consideration’:<br />
AMS v AIF (1999) FLC 92-852 followed.<br />
3. Bolitho v Cohen (2005) FLC 93-224 followed:<br />
‘The requirement to look beyond the proposals <strong>of</strong> the parties highlights the<br />
fundamental difference in litigation involving the welfare <strong>of</strong> a child, and ordinary<br />
inter partes litigation. This unique requirement may necessitate a trial Judge<br />
crafting orders which are outside the proposals presented by either party... This<br />
task requires a trial Judge to afford the parties procedural fairness by indicating<br />
and inviting comment on changes to the parties’ own proposals.’<br />
4. ‘As residence <strong>of</strong> the children was not challenged the difficult task for the trial Judge<br />
was to consider what orders for contact might be made which would allow the<br />
mother’s move to Bundaberg and for the continuation <strong>of</strong> the children’s relationship<br />
with the father... in failing to take <strong>this</strong> approach the trial Judge fell into error.’<br />
(Para 52)<br />
5. There was no substance in the attack on his Honour’s reasons, rather his error<br />
was in failing to consider contact arrangements in light <strong>of</strong> the mother’s proposed<br />
relocation.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Property — Application for dismissal or permanent stay <strong>of</strong> application for leave<br />
to appeal — Husband previously breached orders on several occasions — Wife<br />
incurred considerable costs and time delay due to husband’s breaches — Husband<br />
had sought leave to appeal orders listing the wife’s application for property<br />
adjustment for hearing on an undefended basis — Whether application for leave to<br />
appeal under s 94AA should be dismissed or permanently stayed because <strong>of</strong> noncompliance<br />
with, or contraventions <strong>of</strong> court orders.<br />
An v Zhu [2006] FamCA 179, (2006) FLC 93-257, 27 March 2006<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Faulks DCJ, Warnick and Boland JJ<br />
After long delays caused by the husband and breaches <strong>of</strong> previous procedural orders<br />
and injunctions, the wife’s application for final orders for property adjustment was<br />
listed on an undefended basis. The husband sought leave to appeal <strong>this</strong> decision.<br />
The wife applied for an order that the husband’s application for leave to appeal be<br />
dismissed or permanently stayed.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 65
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
The question for determination was, having regard to the principles to be exercised<br />
when considering summary dismissal or permanent stay <strong>of</strong> the substantive<br />
proceedings, the consequences <strong>of</strong> an undefended hearing on the husband and the<br />
evidence before the court, would a dismissal <strong>of</strong> the husband’s application for leave to<br />
appeal constitute a failure to provide justice to the husband or, having regard to the<br />
wife’s legitimate claim to have her application heard in a timely manner without further<br />
delay and costs, pursuant to the inherent powers <strong>of</strong> the court, should the husband’s<br />
application be dismissed or permanently stayed.<br />
Counsel for the wife submitted that the application for leave to appeal should not be<br />
permitted to proceed because <strong>of</strong>:<br />
the husband’s previous breaches <strong>of</strong> orders<br />
his failure to comply with directions for the appointment <strong>of</strong> a single joint expert<br />
his failure to submit to a medical examination<br />
the significant and ongoing costs <strong>of</strong> the wife, and<br />
the lack <strong>of</strong> certainty about whether the husband would be able to prosecute his appeal.<br />
Counsel for the husband submitted that while the wife was put in a difficult position:<br />
the husband’s application was not hopeless<br />
a medical certificate had been submitted<br />
he had not had adequate notice <strong>of</strong> the hearing <strong>of</strong> the wife’s application, and<br />
shutting the husband out <strong>of</strong> the proceedings was serious.<br />
Held: Application <strong>of</strong> wife dismissed.<br />
1. The matter is finely balanced. The procedural history strongly indicates that<br />
exercising discretion in favour <strong>of</strong> the husband is unwarranted, but the court’s<br />
inherent power to dismiss an application when the effect <strong>of</strong> such dismissal will be to<br />
severely prejudice a party must be exercised with great care.<br />
2. The husband’s application for leave to appeal is not compelling; however it is not<br />
entirely hopeless. His conduct in these proceedings, prima facie, militates against<br />
the exercise <strong>of</strong> discretion in his favour. However, the court was not satisfied that the<br />
husband’s application for leave to appeal was doomed to fail, or that it is frivolous or<br />
vexatious.<br />
3. On balance, the factors favouring the hearing <strong>of</strong> the application for leave to appeal<br />
on its merits outweigh any prejudice to the wife.<br />
66<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Costs — Security for costs application — Factors to be taken into account when<br />
determining whether to make an order for security for costs.<br />
Landy v Landy [2005] FamCA 1257, (2005) FLC 93-244, (2005) 34 FamLR 5,<br />
30 December 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Rowlands, Holden and May JJ<br />
This was an application by the husband seeking an order that the wife pay the sum <strong>of</strong><br />
$40,000 by way <strong>of</strong> security for costs for the costs <strong>of</strong> her appeal to the Full <strong>Court</strong> against<br />
property settlement orders.<br />
Before the trial Judge, the husband’s case was that his liabilities vastly exceeded<br />
his assets and that he had received pr<strong>of</strong>essional advice that he should enter into an<br />
arrangement pursuant to Part X <strong>of</strong> the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The wife’s case was that the<br />
husband had ownership or control <strong>of</strong> companies worth more than $2 million<br />
The trial Judge rejected the valuation evidence <strong>of</strong> the wife’s expert witness finding him<br />
to have been grossly partial and his valuation to have been unsustainable. His Honour<br />
accepted the evidence <strong>of</strong> the husband’s expert witnesses in relation to financial issues.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
The wife had no assets or income from which she could pay any order for costs. The<br />
wife’s grounds <strong>of</strong> appeal were, inter alia, that:<br />
his Honour erred in failing to adjourn the further hearing <strong>of</strong> the case to enable the<br />
appellant to have <strong>full</strong> discovery and inspection <strong>of</strong> the husband's financial affairs, and<br />
his Honour erred in accepting the evidence <strong>of</strong> the husband and the witnesses called<br />
on behalf <strong>of</strong> the husband.<br />
The husband argued that the wife was impecunious and in the event that the Full <strong>Court</strong><br />
dismissed her appeal, he would not be able to enforce any order for costs against her;<br />
there was doubt about the bona fides <strong>of</strong> her appeal; and there was very little prospect<br />
<strong>of</strong> the appeal succeeding.<br />
Application adjourned: Liberty to the wife to argue those grounds <strong>of</strong> her appeal that<br />
related to procedural fairness as a preliminary issue to the appeal.<br />
1. With respect to those grounds <strong>of</strong> the wife’s appeal that related to procedural fairness,<br />
the wife ought not to be denied the right to appeal due to her impecuniosity. Those<br />
grounds were ‘on the face <strong>of</strong> it, [not] so devoid <strong>of</strong> merit as to justify the making <strong>of</strong><br />
an order for security for costs’. Even if the wife’s expert witness was completely<br />
discredited as an accounting expert, the trial may have miscarried if the husband<br />
had failed to <strong>full</strong>y disclose his financial position. If the wife succeeded in establishing<br />
a lack <strong>of</strong> procedural fairness, the matter would be remitted for a re-hearing and the<br />
other grounds <strong>of</strong> appeal would not need to be explored.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 67
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
2. If the wife failed to establish a lack <strong>of</strong> procedural fairness as a preliminary issue to the<br />
appeal, ‘given the strength and comprehensiveness <strong>of</strong> [the trial Judge’s] findings, her<br />
prospects <strong>of</strong> succeeding ... would be remote’.<br />
3. There was ‘considerable force’ in the husband’s argument that the wife’s appeal had<br />
not been brought bona fide. The trial Judge had made ‘a number <strong>of</strong> serious findings<br />
about the relationship between [the wife’s solicitor and her expert witness], how the<br />
valuation <strong>of</strong> came to be prepared and concerning a conversation <strong>of</strong> [the wife’s expert<br />
witness] wherein it was revealed that the case was being proceeded with as a means<br />
<strong>of</strong> placing pressure on the applicant husband’s father to <strong>of</strong>fer a settlement to the<br />
respondent wife’.<br />
Costs — Proceedings between solicitor and client — Part <strong>of</strong> solicitor’s costs <strong>of</strong><br />
defending an application by the client to set aside a costs agreement disallowed<br />
because <strong>of</strong> finding in main proceedings that he had conspired with the client to<br />
mislead the <strong>Court</strong> — Whether sufficient nexus between solicitor’s conduct in the<br />
main proceedings and the later costs agreement proceedings to justify disallowing<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the costs.<br />
Brott v Joachim [2006] FamCA 256, (2006) FLC 93-259, 5 April 2006<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Holden, Warnick and Boland JJ<br />
The solicitor had acted for the client in property proceedings in which he was found<br />
to have conspired with the client to mislead the <strong>Court</strong>. The client later unsuccess<strong>full</strong>y<br />
applied to have the costs agreement between the solicitor and client set aside. The<br />
solicitor applied for his costs <strong>of</strong> defending that application, and though successful,<br />
had part <strong>of</strong> them disallowed because <strong>of</strong> his conduct during the main proceedings. The<br />
solicitor appealed.<br />
Senior Counsel for the solicitor submitted that there was only one reason given for not<br />
awarding him all his costs and that the reason was irrelevant, relating as it did to his<br />
conduct prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> the proceedings to which the costs related.<br />
Held: Appeal allowed.<br />
1. The solicitor’s involvement in the conspiracy during the period in which he acted<br />
for the client in her property settlement proceedings was too remote from the<br />
substantive issues in the proceedings to set aside the costs agreement to be relevant<br />
to the issue <strong>of</strong> the costs <strong>of</strong> those proceedings.<br />
2. However, [in the re-exercise <strong>of</strong> discretion], leaving aside the matter <strong>of</strong> the conspiracy,<br />
<strong>of</strong> which no account was taken, it was considered clear that the trial Judge intended<br />
to take into account the conduct <strong>of</strong> each party in the [costs agreement] proceedings<br />
and in that regard, made significant findings against the solicitor.<br />
3. The client pay 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> the costs <strong>of</strong> the solicitor together with the costs <strong>of</strong><br />
the appeal.<br />
68<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Child sexual abuse allegations — Supervised contact — Discretionary judgment<br />
— Whether child faced an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> abuse by the father — Meaning <strong>of</strong><br />
unacceptable risk — Standard <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> required to make a positive finding <strong>of</strong> sexual<br />
abuse — Weight to be given to importance <strong>of</strong> maintaining contact — Whether<br />
trial Judge inferred finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse — Expert evidence — Qualifications <strong>of</strong><br />
experts — Whether expert was aligned with the mother.<br />
W v W (Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk) [2005] FamCA 892, (2005)<br />
FLC 93-235, (2005) 34 FamLR 129, 21 September 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Warnick, May and Boland JJ<br />
This was an appeal by the father against an order for supervised contact on several<br />
grounds but primarily that her Honour had erred in law in concluding that E faced an<br />
unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> abuse by the father.<br />
The parties married in July 1999 and separated in June 2003. There was one child <strong>of</strong> the<br />
marriage, E, aged four at the date <strong>of</strong> the trial. The mother also had two daughters from<br />
a previous relationship, aged 12 and 10, who lived with the parties during the marriage.<br />
After separation, the father remained in the family home and the mother and children<br />
went to live with the mother’s parents.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
The mother revealed to the older daughters that she and her sister had been sexually<br />
abused as children by the maternal grandfather and she sought pr<strong>of</strong>essional assistance<br />
for the daughters to learn ‘protective behaviours’ with the father’s agreement.<br />
From June to September 2003, E made various statements to the maternal grandmother,<br />
the mother and to a social worker at a clinic (Ms M) which led them to believe there was<br />
a possibility the father had been sexually abusive or sexually inappropriate to E. E was<br />
aged three at the time the statements were made. The allegations were continuously<br />
and vigorously denied by the father.<br />
At the trial, four experts gave evidence regarding the nature <strong>of</strong> the relationship<br />
between E and each <strong>of</strong> her parents and in relation to the allegations <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse.<br />
Ms M gave evidence as an observer <strong>of</strong> E’s behaviour during free play and as a witness<br />
to E’s statements. Ms M had 23 years <strong>of</strong> experience, 11 <strong>of</strong> which were at the clinic. Dr L,<br />
an experienced psychologist, wrote a <strong>Family</strong> Report, and Dr H, a child psychiatrist<br />
provided an investigative <strong>report</strong> for the Child Representative. Dr H concluded there was<br />
a 90 per cent probability the father had sexually abused E.<br />
Mr B was a forensic psychologist engaged by the father to provide personality testing<br />
<strong>of</strong> the father. Mr B conducted two tests. From the first test he found ‘no evidence that<br />
[the father] was sexually attracted to children, a paedophile, or child molester, but<br />
he concluded that he presented as “an uncertain risk” to his own or other children’.<br />
Mr B considered the second test to be invalid.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 69
The trial Judge provided a detailed judgment finding that:<br />
on the balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities, a finding that the father had sexually abused E could<br />
not be made, and<br />
there was an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse to E if E was to have unsupervised<br />
contact with the father.<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Her Honour accepted the ‘preponderance <strong>of</strong> expert evidence’, finding the mother had<br />
not alienated E from the father and discounted the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr B due largely to his<br />
inconclusive findings. Her Honour made orders for regular supervised contact, to be<br />
increased over time and reviewed after three years at which time a further <strong>report</strong> was<br />
to be obtained.<br />
In his appeal, the father submitted, inter alia:<br />
Ms M’s evidence was outside her area <strong>of</strong> expertise and she was biased towards the<br />
mother<br />
her Honour implied a finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse, which was damaging to the father and<br />
not supported by evidence<br />
the certainties <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> were not attained<br />
her Honour failed to properly weigh the importance <strong>of</strong> the relationship between<br />
E and her father, and<br />
her Honour failed to focus on a number <strong>of</strong> critical matters in determining the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
sexual abuse to the Briginshaw standard (Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336),<br />
including that the father had lived in a house with two young step-daughters<br />
without suggestion <strong>of</strong> improper conduct towards them.<br />
Held: Appeal dismissed.<br />
1. In relation to whether there has been an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> abuse, a number <strong>of</strong><br />
cases were considered, in particular the High <strong>Court</strong> judgment <strong>of</strong> M v M (1988)<br />
FLC 91‐979.<br />
2. A finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse should not be made unless a Judge is satisfied to the<br />
highest standard on the balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities abuse has occurred. It was<br />
reasonable on the evidence and given the complexity <strong>of</strong> the case for her Honour<br />
to reach the conclusion that she could not make a finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse. The trial<br />
Judge’s statements did not constitute, by implication, a finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse.<br />
3. Her Honour was not required to consider evidence in relation to the father’s<br />
relationship with his step daughters.<br />
4. Her Honour gave due consideration to all factors regarding Ms M’s expertise and<br />
correctly assessed her as an expert for the purposes <strong>of</strong> the evidence she gave to<br />
the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
5. ‘[I]t is impractical for a trial Judge to deal with each and every aspect <strong>of</strong> each<br />
witnesses’ evidence. We are satisfied that the trial Judge did not omit or fail to cover<br />
evidence that was relevant.’<br />
70<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
6. Each <strong>of</strong> her Honour’s findings relevant to the father’s appeal was supported by<br />
evidence.<br />
7. ‘Mr B’s conclusions based on his testing did not give substantial support to the<br />
father’s case, but rather cast doubt on his parenting capacity.’<br />
8. ‘Although the trial Judge did not make a finding <strong>of</strong> sexual abuse, it was necessary,<br />
nonetheless, for appropriate consideration to be given to the evidence relevant<br />
to the question <strong>of</strong> unacceptable risk.’ Her Honour care<strong>full</strong>y weighed all the expert<br />
evidence, she afforded appropriate weight to E’s relationship with the father and<br />
reached a finding <strong>of</strong> unacceptable risk to the requisite standard.<br />
Part 5<br />
Parenting orders — Contact — Contravention — Reasonable excuse — <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
Act 1975 s 70NE(1A).<br />
Daly v Campbell [2005] FamCA 1046, (2005) FLC 93-236, 4 November 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Kay, Warnick and Boland JJ.<br />
The mother appealed against a finding <strong>of</strong> the trial Judge that she had contravened<br />
orders for contact without reasonable excuse.<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
There had been numerous proceedings in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> between the mother and<br />
father in relation to contact by the father with their child T (aged 7 at the time <strong>of</strong> the<br />
appeal). Orders were made on 17 March 2004 including, inter alia, that T reside with<br />
the mother and that changeover for contact take place at a contact centre. Previous<br />
contravention proceedings resulted in the mother being sentenced to imprisonment<br />
for 30 days and serving 12 days <strong>of</strong> that term.<br />
It was agreed that on 17 September 2004, the mother delivered T to the contact centre,<br />
as required by the orders. The mother admitted that on that date, contact between the<br />
father and T did not take place. She asserted that by delivering T to the contact centre,<br />
she did all that was required <strong>of</strong> her in accordance with the orders. She gave evidence<br />
that once at the contact centre she left the physical changeover to the employees <strong>of</strong><br />
the centre, who ultimately told the mother to take T home. An employee <strong>of</strong> the contact<br />
centre gave evidence that the mother did encourage T to attend contact with her father<br />
on the date <strong>of</strong> the alleged contravention. The father asserted that the mother was<br />
required to do all that was reasonably possible to ensure the child attended contact<br />
with the father and that she did not discharge <strong>this</strong> obligation.<br />
In relation to the mother’s evidence at trial, her Honour was not ‘convinced by her<br />
evidence that she did take any step to genuinely encourage T to go on contact with<br />
her father other than taking T to the contact centre and telling her “<strong>of</strong>f you go”’. Her<br />
Honour found that the mother was required to take ‘[a]n active role with an obligation<br />
to positively encourage access’, which she did not do. On the balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities,<br />
the mother did not have a reasonable excuse for contravening the contact order.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 71
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
On appeal, the mother made an application to adduce further evidence, being the<br />
agreement with the contact centre which ‘vests total management <strong>of</strong> control <strong>of</strong> the<br />
actual physical contact handover process in the contact centre and the appellant was<br />
effectively not allowed to have any involvement in the actual handover process’. She<br />
submitted firstly, she did ‘everything that she could and was allowed to do to assist<br />
in contact occurring’ and secondly, that the decision not to proceed with contact<br />
handover ‘was one made by staff at the contact handover centre... in line with the<br />
agreement signed by the parties’.<br />
Held: Appeal allowed. Remitted for retrial.<br />
1. The further evidence <strong>of</strong> the agreement with the contact centre, sought to be<br />
adduced by the mother, was not allowed. This was evidence available to the mother<br />
at the time <strong>of</strong> the trial and therefore could not be raised on appeal.<br />
2. The mother’s ‘submissions raised, inferentially if not expressly, the question <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mother’s belief as to her obligations under the contact orders’. This was relevant to<br />
s 70NE(1A) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, which was not addressed by the trial Judge.<br />
That is, if it were found the mother did not understand her obligations in relation to<br />
the contact orders, <strong>this</strong> would have constituted a reasonable excuse.<br />
3. During the trial ‘the question <strong>of</strong> the mother’s understanding <strong>of</strong> the obligations<br />
imposed upon her by the orders was alive, though her own legal representative<br />
slipped away from the point and focussed upon the reasonableness <strong>of</strong> attempts to<br />
comply with obligations rather than a misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> obligations. However,<br />
we do not consider that that progression amounted to an abandonment <strong>of</strong> such<br />
defences as were available to the mother.’<br />
Property — Informal agreement made post-separation without <strong>full</strong> and frank<br />
disclosure — Whether wife estopped from property proceedings — Substantial<br />
period between separation and property proceedings — Post-separation liabilities<br />
— Whether alleged liability should be excluded — Presumption <strong>of</strong> advancement<br />
— Whether presumption exists between father and daughter-in-law — assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> s 75(2) factors — Asset by asset approach — <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 75(2).<br />
Zalewski v Zalewski [2005] FamCA 996, (2005) FLC 93-241, (2005) 34 FamLR 296,<br />
24 October 2005<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Finn, Coleman and Boland JJ<br />
This was an appeal by the father against orders for property settlement.<br />
The parties married in 1975 and divorced in 2002. There were two children <strong>of</strong> the<br />
marriage, both over the age <strong>of</strong> 18 and independent at the time <strong>of</strong> the hearing. On<br />
10 January 1997, the parties entered into Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement, by consent, which were<br />
72<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
not filed with the <strong>Court</strong>. The wife filed an application for property settlement on 16<br />
October 2002, seeking a division <strong>of</strong> the parties’ assets as to 60 per cent in her favour,<br />
together with spousal maintenance. The husband contended the parties’ assets be<br />
divided in accordance with the Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement and that the wife ‘should be<br />
estopped from resiling from that agreement, which was relied upon by the parties’.<br />
The trial Judge found that the wife was entitled to proceed with her applications for<br />
maintenance and alteration <strong>of</strong> property interests, in particular noting the husband had<br />
failed to make a <strong>full</strong> and frank disclosure during both the negotiation and preparation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement.<br />
The trial Judge found the contributions <strong>of</strong> the parties to be equal during the marriage<br />
but awarded the husband with a 30 per cent adjustment in his favour as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
his post-separation contributions. His Honour then made a 10 per cent adjustment in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> s 75(2) factors in favour <strong>of</strong> the wife. Ultimately, the net property <strong>of</strong> $3,175,179<br />
was divided as to 70 per cent to the husband and 30 per cent to the wife.<br />
The husband appealed on the grounds that, inter alia:<br />
The wife’s entitlement should have been limited to the assets which she agreed<br />
to accept under the Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement, and that the trial Judge erred in finding<br />
that the wife was not precluded from pursuing property proceedings due to <strong>this</strong><br />
earlier agreement<br />
The husband’s half share interest in a property in Tweed Heads should not have<br />
been included as part <strong>of</strong> the property available for division between the parties.<br />
This property was purchased by the husband’s father and originally divided in four<br />
equal parts between the husband’s father, the husband, the wife and the husband’s<br />
brother. The parties had earlier entered into interim consent orders transferring the<br />
wife's share <strong>of</strong> the property to the husband<br />
The trial Judge erred in failing to include the husband’s alleged debt to his former de<br />
facto partner as a liability<br />
The trial Judge erred in his assessments <strong>of</strong> the wife’s contributions at 20 per cent and<br />
in making an adjustment in her favour <strong>of</strong> 10 per cent in respect <strong>of</strong> s 75(2) factors, and<br />
The orders were not just and equitable as they required a cash payment to the wife<br />
within three months, which was an unrealistic time frame given the husband's assets<br />
to be realised in order to finance the payment.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
The parties were granted leave to adduce further evidence in the appeal, being:<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> the death <strong>of</strong> the husband’s father and the devising <strong>of</strong> his estate to the<br />
husband, and<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> the status <strong>of</strong> proceedings in the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Queensland in<br />
relation to the property proceedings between the husband and his former de facto<br />
– <strong>of</strong> the Supreme <strong>Court</strong>’s refusal to make the consent orders filed by the husband<br />
and his former de facto.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 73
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Held: Appeal dismissed.<br />
1. Neither party challenged his Honour’s findings about the lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>full</strong> and frank<br />
disclosure by the husband in 1997 in the course <strong>of</strong> negotiation and execution <strong>of</strong><br />
Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement. There was no dispute that the husband failed to disclose to the<br />
wife his interest in his superannuation fund which as at 30 June 1996 had assets <strong>of</strong><br />
$255,635, or the purchase <strong>of</strong> certain business premises.<br />
2. The law in relation to non-disclosure is well known and subject <strong>of</strong> decided authority<br />
(Black v Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287; Weir v Weir (1993) FLC 92-338 and Kannis v Kannis<br />
(2003) FLC 93-135). There was no error <strong>of</strong> principle by the trial Judge in the manner in<br />
which he dealt with the issue <strong>of</strong> the 1997 consent orders, or that the trial Judge had<br />
regard to any irrelevant matter or failed to take into account any relevant matter in<br />
his finding that an order in the wife’s favour under s 79 based on the 1997 proposed<br />
orders would not be just and equitable.<br />
3. The trial Judge was not in error in excluding the husband’s alleged liability to his<br />
former de facto when calculating the parties’ assets and liabilities available for<br />
division. His Honour’s finding that the husband’s evidence about <strong>this</strong> issue was<br />
significantly flawed was open to him. No orders had been made at the date <strong>of</strong> the<br />
trial, and by the time <strong>of</strong> appeal, it appeared to the <strong>Court</strong> that the de facto’s claim<br />
was, prima facie, statute barred. Whether or not a liability incurred after separation is<br />
taken into account is at the discretion <strong>of</strong> the trial Judge.<br />
4. In relation to the property at Tweed Heads, there could be a presumption <strong>of</strong><br />
advancement between the husband’s father and the husband, but no presumption<br />
<strong>of</strong> advancement between a father and a daughter-in-law. However, the wife did not<br />
contend there was a presumption <strong>of</strong> advancement to her and as the husband held<br />
50 per cent <strong>of</strong> the property at the time <strong>of</strong> separation, his Honour correctly considered<br />
the property as part <strong>of</strong> the pool <strong>of</strong> assets, yet noted <strong>this</strong> was a contribution made<br />
wholly by the husband.<br />
Per Finn J, it was also important to note that as a result <strong>of</strong> the further evidence<br />
adduced on appeal, his Honour was correct in presuming the advancement to the<br />
husband who, after the death <strong>of</strong> the husband’s father, was undoubtedly the owner<br />
<strong>of</strong> property.<br />
5. There was no serious challenge to his Honour’s assessment <strong>of</strong> the parties’<br />
contributions to the date <strong>of</strong> separation as being equal. The husband’s skills and<br />
his initial interest in the company acquired during the marriage provided the<br />
foundation from which the husband was able to accumulate his post-separation<br />
assets and make substantial contributions to his superannuation fund.<br />
6. The assessment <strong>of</strong> contributions cannot generally be a strictly mathematical task,<br />
particularly in a marriage <strong>of</strong> long duration (Norbis v Norbis (1986) FLC 91-712 and<br />
G v G (1984) FLC 91-582). There was no error in his Honour’s assessment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parties’ respective contributions.<br />
74<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
7. In relation to his Honour’s s 75(2) adjustment to the wife, caution was required to<br />
avoid the possibility <strong>of</strong> ‘double counting’ <strong>of</strong> an indirect non-financial contribution<br />
by a spouse as homemaker and parent to the development <strong>of</strong> a business, and<br />
in addition, making an adjustment relying on s 75(2)(j). However, in <strong>this</strong> case his<br />
Honour did not ‘double count’. The 10 per cent adjustment found by the trial Judge<br />
to be appropriate was one within the reasonable ambit <strong>of</strong> his discretion.<br />
8. Having regard to the assets to be retained by the husband, the orders <strong>of</strong> the trial<br />
Judge which provided for payment within three months <strong>of</strong> $492,856.70 to the<br />
wife, and transfer <strong>of</strong> the husband’s interest in the matrimonial home, were just and<br />
equitable.<br />
9. Per Finn J (obiter), his Honour validly adopted a global approach to the assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the parties’ contributions to their property, however, for similar cases where the<br />
period between the parties’ separation and the hearing <strong>of</strong> their property settlement<br />
proceedings is substantial, it would be useful to assess contributions on an asset by<br />
asset basis.<br />
Parenting — <strong>Family</strong> violence — Finding at first instance <strong>of</strong> ‘unacceptable risk<br />
that [the child] would be exposed to scenes <strong>of</strong> violence’ — Whether the Federal<br />
Magistrate erred in failing to apply the Briginshaw test in finding unacceptable risk<br />
— Whether a party should be permitted to change their position only in<br />
final submissions.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
McCawley v Stewart [2006] FamCA 6, (2005) FLC 93-250, 27 January 2006<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Finn J<br />
The mother appealed a decision <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrate in a parenting case to a single<br />
Judge <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
In evidence, the mother’s first preference as regards residence was for the child to live<br />
with her. Her second preference was for the child to live with the father as opposed to<br />
shared care. In final addresses at trial, the father had changed his position from seeking<br />
a shared residence arrangement to seeking a residence order. Counsel for the mother<br />
had been given the opportunity to reply but failed to refer or respond to the father’s<br />
sole residence proposal.<br />
In weighing up the competing sole residence applications, the Federal Magistrate had<br />
found that if the child were to live with the mother there would be ‘an unacceptable risk<br />
that she would be exposed to scenes <strong>of</strong> violence’ and primarily for that reason made a<br />
residence order in favour <strong>of</strong> the father.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 75
On appeal, the mother submitted that:<br />
the Federal Magistrate had erred in finding that the father's position had changed at<br />
the ‘end <strong>of</strong> the case’. The father did not put forward any evidence in support <strong>of</strong> the<br />
change nor did he seek to file an amended Minutes <strong>of</strong> Order.<br />
the Federal Magistrate erred:<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
a. in failing to apply the high degree <strong>of</strong> certainty required under Briginshaw v<br />
Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 when determining the issue <strong>of</strong> violence<br />
b. in failing to place any or sufficient weight on the evidence <strong>of</strong> the father’s<br />
violence towards the mother<br />
c. in finding that a ‘possibility <strong>of</strong> exposure to violence’ constituted an<br />
unacceptable risk, and<br />
d. in finding that there was an unacceptable risk <strong>of</strong> the child being exposed to<br />
violence if she resided with her mother.<br />
Appeal dismissed.<br />
1. It would be an unduly technical approach to hold that as the father’s case had<br />
changed at the end <strong>of</strong> the evidence, it was an appellable error for the Federal<br />
Magistrate to have found that it had changed ‘at the end <strong>of</strong> the case’.<br />
2. In matters concerning the future living arrangements <strong>of</strong> a child, the parties should<br />
be at liberty to urge in the submissions whatever arrangements in the light <strong>of</strong> the<br />
evidence are in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the child, subject to the right <strong>of</strong> the other party<br />
to be heard in response. The mother had had that opportunity to be heard.<br />
3. In the present case there was no allegation that the child was abused in any way<br />
and accordingly the test in Briginshaw did not apply. Briginshaw and M v M (1988)<br />
FLC 91‐979 considered.<br />
4. The findings regarding the father’s violence were open to the Federal Magistrate<br />
and the weight he attached to them was not open to interference.<br />
5. The finding at first instance was that there was an unacceptable risk that the child<br />
would be exposed to scenes <strong>of</strong> violence, not to violence towards the child. In any<br />
event in the present case a finding that there was an ‘unacceptable risk’ was not<br />
necessary to justify the Federal Magistrate’s decision.<br />
6. This finding was open to the Federal Magistrate on the evidence before him. There<br />
was no need for there to be an ‘unacceptable risk’ <strong>of</strong> exposure to scenes <strong>of</strong> violence<br />
for the Federal Magistrate to make the orders he did (although he was not in error by<br />
finding there was). The task for him was to consider what was in the best interests <strong>of</strong><br />
the child by a consideration <strong>of</strong> the matters in s 68F including the need to protect the<br />
child from exposure to violence directed at others.<br />
76<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENTS<br />
Property adjustment — Superannuation in payment — Period <strong>of</strong> service ending<br />
nine years before commencement <strong>of</strong> cohabitation — Whether asset by asset<br />
approach or global approach preferred — Isolation <strong>of</strong> superannuation in payment<br />
in separate pool — Whether s 75(2) adjustment to reflect husband’s superannuation<br />
benefit a “double count” after contributions assessment — <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975<br />
s 79(4)(e); s 75(2) .<br />
McKinnon v McKinnon [2005] FamCA 1245, (2005) FLC 93-242, 23 December 2005<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Coleman J<br />
This was the re-exercise <strong>of</strong> the discretion <strong>of</strong> a Federal Magistrate by Coleman J following<br />
the husband’s successful appeal against orders for property adjustment and spouse<br />
maintenance.<br />
At the appeal hearing, the Federal Magistrate was found to have erred in making<br />
a s 75(2) adjustment by reason <strong>of</strong> a pension only superannuation interest <strong>of</strong> the<br />
husband in the payment phase, having earlier included it at its valuation under the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 and, by the contribution finding,<br />
awarded the wife a proportion <strong>of</strong> the interest. The parties began cohabiting in about<br />
1997 and separated five years later. Neither party had an earning capacity due to their<br />
ages and state <strong>of</strong> health.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
It was found that the pool <strong>of</strong> assets had a net worth <strong>of</strong> approximately $596,000 largely<br />
contributed to by the husband. The husband also had entitlements in a pension<br />
scheme (the DFRDB pension) referable to his service with the Royal Australian Air Force<br />
from 1967 to 1988. The DFRDB pension was worth $248,774 and was considered as a<br />
separate, second pool <strong>of</strong> property.<br />
Appeal allowed.<br />
1. As the DFRDB pension was in payment and could not be commuted, it was<br />
preferable to adopt the asset by asset approach, and isolate the DFRDB pension in<br />
its own pool (Coghlan v Coghlan (2005) FLC 93-220).<br />
2. As the husband’s period <strong>of</strong> service giving rise to his entitlements under the DFRDB<br />
pension came to an end some nine years before the parties began living together,<br />
the husband alone had contributed to it.<br />
3. Whilst ‘care needs to be exercised to ensure that superannuation interests are not<br />
double counted’, as none <strong>of</strong> the DFRDB pension had been awarded to the wife by<br />
way <strong>of</strong> contributions, it was not a ‘double count’ to make an allowance under s 75(2)<br />
to reflect the very substantial benefit in real terms the husband received from it<br />
unmatched by anything available to the wife.<br />
4. The contributions by the wife to the asset pool <strong>of</strong> $596,000 was assessed at<br />
15.5 per cent and she was awarded a 10 per cent adjustment for s 75(2) factors.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 77
Practice and procedure — Application for leave to Amend Form 1 — Whether<br />
amended application would be ‘doomed to failure’ — Orders sought under <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Act 1975 Pt VIIIAA — <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004 R 11.10(a)(ii).<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Hughes-Kempe v Kempe and Bocampe Pty Ltd & Ors [2005] FamCA 997, (2005)<br />
FLC 93-237, (2005) 34 FamLR 266, 21 September 2005<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Morgan J<br />
This was an application by the wife for leave to amend her application for property<br />
orders and to join additional respondents. The proposed respondents and the husband<br />
opposed the application on the ground that the application was doomed to failure.<br />
The husband and wife married in 1983. At the time <strong>of</strong> the hearing they had two sons<br />
aged 21 and 17. The assets to which the parties were directly entitled were relatively<br />
modest, and the wife’s application was intended to enlarge the pool <strong>of</strong> matrimonial<br />
assets. The proposed respondents were the controllers <strong>of</strong> several discretionary trusts<br />
<strong>of</strong> which the husband was a beneficiary. The wife sought in her application that the<br />
proposed respondents be ordered to use their powers to compel the trustee <strong>of</strong> the<br />
individual trusts to make such capital distribution from the funds <strong>of</strong> the trust as the<br />
court deemed appropriate. The wife sought orders under Pt VIIIAA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act<br />
1975. As more than 28 days had passed since the final resolution date, the wife required<br />
leave to amend her application (R 11.10(a)(ii) <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules).<br />
Held: That the application be allowed.<br />
1. The issues in deciding whether to permit an amendment were similar to those<br />
pertaining to applications to summarily dismiss matters. Lindon v the Commonwealth<br />
(No 2) (1996) 70 ALJR 54 and Pelerman v Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037 followed, in<br />
which the <strong>Court</strong>s have said that a case being weak and unlikely to succeed was not<br />
alone sufficient to warrant termination <strong>of</strong> a matter, but there must be evidence that<br />
a matter is ‘doomed to failure’ or ‘obviously futile’.<br />
2. The order sought by the wife would override the existing principles <strong>of</strong> trusts law.<br />
3. Section 90AA contradicts Pt VIIIAA <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 as on the one hand it<br />
is stated to be to allow the court to make an order under s 79 that alters the rights,<br />
liabilities and property interests <strong>of</strong> third parties but on the other hand the power<br />
granted must be in ‘relation to the property <strong>of</strong> a party to the marriage’.<br />
4. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill containing the legislation appears to<br />
contradict the plain words <strong>of</strong> s 90AE(2)(b).<br />
5. Reference to extrinsic materials is not permitted for departure from the ordinary<br />
meaning <strong>of</strong> the text <strong>of</strong> the enactment unless ‘either the meaning <strong>of</strong> the provision<br />
to be construed is ambiguous or obscure or in its ordinary meaning leads to a result<br />
that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable’ (Re Australian Federation <strong>of</strong> Construction<br />
Contractors; Ex parte Billing (1986) 68 ALR 416 at 420).<br />
78<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
6. The complex issues raised by the wife’s proposed amendment would be a matter<br />
for the trial Judge and the very complexity <strong>of</strong> the issues demonstrated that the<br />
wife had an arguable case and that her application was not ‘doomed to failure’<br />
or ‘obviously futile’.<br />
Child abduction — Application for return <strong>of</strong> child wrong<strong>full</strong>y removed from America<br />
to Australia — Whether the child was habitually resident in America — Whether<br />
application made within one year <strong>of</strong> the child’s removal — Whether time commenced to<br />
run when child was removed from America or when child arrived in Australia — Whether<br />
time is to be calculated according to the time in America or the time in Australia<br />
— Whether child settled in new environment — Whether Judge retains a discretion to<br />
return the child under the Regulations if the child is found to be settled — Exercise <strong>of</strong><br />
discretion — <strong>Family</strong> Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986.<br />
State Central Authority v CR [2005] FamCA 1050, (2005) FLC 93-243, (2005)<br />
34 FamLR 354, 4 November 2005<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Kay J<br />
The Central Authority made an application on behalf <strong>of</strong> the husband for the return<br />
<strong>of</strong> the child <strong>of</strong> the marriage to America pursuant to the <strong>Family</strong> Law (Child Abduction<br />
Convention) Regulations 1986.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
The mother is Australian and the father American. They met via the Internet in early<br />
2002, ultimately marrying in America in November 2002. The parties came to Australia<br />
in May 2003 and returned to the United States in February 2004. Their child, JDR was<br />
born in October 2003 in Australia. On 19 July 2004, the mother left Arkansas with the<br />
child and without the father’s knowledge or consent to live in Australia. The mother and<br />
infant child boarded the plane at Los Angeles, bound for Australia, on 20 July 2004. The<br />
plane was delayed and actually departed from Los Angeles in the early hours <strong>of</strong> 21 July<br />
2004, arriving in Australia on 22 July 2004. On 21 July 2005, an application was filed in<br />
the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia at Melbourne seeking an order that the child be forthwith<br />
returned to the United States.<br />
His Honour considered the following issues:<br />
a. Immediately prior to the child being taken to Australia, was the child habitually<br />
resident in the USA?<br />
b. If yes to (a), was the relevant application filed within one year <strong>of</strong> the date <strong>of</strong> removal?<br />
c. If removal took place at the time the child boarded the plane rather than the time<br />
the plane crossed the frontier <strong>of</strong> the USA, does time commence to run from the<br />
moment that the child was removed from the USA or from the time the child arrived<br />
in Australia and if the former, is the time <strong>of</strong> boarding calculated according to time in<br />
the USA or Australia?<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 79
d. If the application was filed in Australia more than one year after the removal date<br />
and the child was settled in Australia, did he still retain a discretion to return the<br />
child and, if so, how should that discretion be exercised?<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
The mother argued the parents had always intended to live in Australia and their stay<br />
in the United States was intended as a holiday. The father argued to the contrary,<br />
providing evidence the mother had sought permanent residency in America. There was<br />
no evidence that the parties had discussed returning to live in Australia.<br />
The child be returned to the United States <strong>of</strong> America.<br />
1. The question <strong>of</strong> habitual residency is not a question <strong>of</strong> domicile. One must look<br />
to mutual intent <strong>of</strong> the parents to determine habitual residency. De Lewindsky v<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Community Services (1997) FLC 92-737 followed, which held that ‘the<br />
habitual residence <strong>of</strong> young children is the same as the habitual residence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parents and neither can change it without the consent <strong>of</strong> the other or order <strong>of</strong> the<br />
court’ and it is ‘a place adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes’.<br />
2. The father’s evidence that the parties intended to live in the USA was accepted and<br />
the child was thus habitually resident in the USA.<br />
3. In relation to the relevant time for the ‘date <strong>of</strong> removal’, his Honour followed his<br />
decision in State Central Authority v Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746. The critical date is the<br />
date the child is removed from his/her place <strong>of</strong> habitual residence and not the date<br />
the child arrived in Australia.<br />
4. ‘The time for determining when the wrongful removal took place was to be<br />
measured according to the time at the place where the wrongful removal occurred,<br />
namely California.’ As the American frontier was not crossed until some time on<br />
21 July 2004, the application <strong>of</strong> 21 July 2005, was brought within one year <strong>of</strong> the<br />
wrongful removal.<br />
5. As questions (a) and (b) were answered in the affirmative and as the appropriate<br />
time where removal occurred is to be measured from the place <strong>of</strong> wrongful removal,<br />
the child must be immediately returned to America.<br />
6. Question (d) considered in obiter dicta:<br />
If the application had been made more than one year after the day on which<br />
the child was first wrong<strong>full</strong>y removed from his place <strong>of</strong> habitual residence,<br />
it would be necessary to consider whether the child had settled in his new<br />
environment.<br />
Following Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department v TS (2001) FLC 93-063, ‘the<br />
onus lies on the mother to establish the proposition that the child is settled<br />
in his new environment. I do not regard <strong>this</strong> as a particularly heavy onus but<br />
simply the establishment <strong>of</strong> an issue <strong>of</strong> fact determined on the balance <strong>of</strong><br />
probabilities.’<br />
For a young child who is attached to his mother (as in <strong>this</strong> case), it is necessary<br />
to consider also whether the mother is settled in her new environment and how<br />
the child is cared for in that environment.<br />
80<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
It is not necessary to consider if the child would be equally settled were he to<br />
be returned to Arkansas. The question is simply whether the child is settled in<br />
his current environment.<br />
The object <strong>of</strong> the Hague Convention is to ensure a speedy return <strong>of</strong> a child<br />
to his/her place <strong>of</strong> habitual residence so the parents, or court <strong>of</strong> appropriate<br />
jurisdiction, can decide where the child is to live.<br />
Once a child has been settled in its new environment and more than a year has<br />
passed since the child's wrongful removal or retention, the court has no power to<br />
return the child to his original place <strong>of</strong> habitual residence.<br />
Part 5<br />
Child abduction — Whether child to be returned to the United Kingdom — Whether<br />
the child’s removal to, or retention in, Australia was in breach <strong>of</strong> the father’s rights<br />
<strong>of</strong> custody — Whether the father had consented or subsequently acquiesced in the<br />
child being removed to, or retained in, Australia — Relevance <strong>of</strong> alleged consent to<br />
the child’s removal where there has been a breach <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> custody.<br />
Director-General Department <strong>of</strong> Child Safety v Stratford [2005] FamCA 1115,<br />
(2005) FLC 93-249, (2005) 34 FamLR 636, 22 November 2005<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before O’Reilly J<br />
The Director-General <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Child Safety applied for an order on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> the father, a United Kingdom (UK) citizen and resident, pursuant to Reg 15<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1986 (the Regulations) for the return<br />
<strong>of</strong> J to the UK.<br />
The respondent mother and the child had dual UK and Australia citizenship and<br />
resided in Australia. The father and mother cohabited in the UK from October 2001<br />
to February 2004. J was born in December 2003 some months before the parents<br />
separated. On 3 September 2004 the father made an emergency application to the<br />
Gloucester County <strong>Court</strong> for a prohibited steps order which was listed for directions on<br />
7 September 2004. On 6 September 2004, the mother left the United Kingdom with the<br />
child and had lived in Australia since.<br />
The mother argued that the father had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the<br />
child being removed to or retained in Australia and pointed to:<br />
conversations between the parties concerning the mother’s proposed relocation<br />
the father’s consent to the application for an Australian passport for the child, and<br />
the father’s conduct in ‘standing by’, including his participation in the division <strong>of</strong><br />
their property.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 81
Counsel for the Central Authority submitted that the father’s consent was ‘not real<br />
consent’ and pointed to internal inconsistencies in the mother’s evidence as the basis<br />
for its submission that the father’s consent was ‘inherently improbable and/or so<br />
unreliable that it should be rejected’.<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
Held: Application granted. Child to be returned to the United Kingdom.<br />
1. The mother’s removal <strong>of</strong> the child was in breach <strong>of</strong> the father’s rights <strong>of</strong> custody<br />
under Art 5 <strong>of</strong> the Convention on the Civil Aspects <strong>of</strong> International Child Abduction and<br />
Reg 16(1A)(d) <strong>of</strong> the Regulations, as the removal was contrary to or interfered with<br />
the father’s right to determine the child’s place <strong>of</strong> residence. The father’s rights <strong>of</strong><br />
custody derived from his ‘parental responsibility’ under UK statute law.<br />
2. The party raising an issue under Art 13 (reg 16(3)(a)(ii)) carries the burden <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
The proper approach to resolving disputed matters <strong>of</strong> fact in such cases is as follows<br />
(at para 49):<br />
‘Where there is disputed non-oral evidence, any “extraneous independent<br />
evidence” must be more than persuasive, and indeed, compelling, to reject<br />
a deponent’s sworn testimony, such that, where there are “no grounds for<br />
rejecting the written evidence on either side”, the party carrying the onus will<br />
have failed to establish his or her case.’<br />
3. The mother’s case under Reg 16(3)(a)(ii) was not proved as she failed to discharge<br />
the onus <strong>of</strong> proving that the father consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the<br />
child’s removal from the UK.<br />
4. There were inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the mother’s affidavit<br />
material that caused her Honour ‘to doubt her honesty or which, at least, cause[d]<br />
her testimony to be unreliable’.<br />
Parenting orders —International relocation — Mother wishing to relocate to New<br />
Zealand with the children.<br />
Walls v Robinson [2006] FamCA 25, (2006) FLC 93-251, 30 January 2006<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Carmody J<br />
This was a defended parenting case involving an international relocation proposal by<br />
the mother. The father and the mother (both New Zealand citizens) <strong>of</strong> three children<br />
aged 11, eight and five applied for parenting orders. The family lived in New Zealand<br />
before moving to Australia four years before the case was heard. The children were<br />
well‐settled in Australia, with strong sporting links to the community in which the<br />
father and the mother were also heavily involved.<br />
82<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The mother submitted that the children should live with her in New Zealand, or if that<br />
application failed, in Australia, because:<br />
she was the primary carer<br />
she wished to gain financial independence and self-determination<br />
she had no family in Australia and wished to be closer to her family in New Zealand<br />
for support<br />
she was unhappy and isolated in Australia<br />
she wished to reconnect with Maori culture, and<br />
she had an <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> employment in New Zealand with linked accommodation.<br />
The father submitted that the children should live with him in Australia.<br />
Held: The application by the mother to relocate refused.<br />
1. The trial Judge undertook a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> Australian, New Zealand, English,<br />
Canadian and USA authorities and set out principles and considerations in relocation<br />
cases (A v A: Relocation approach (2000) FLC 93-035)<br />
2. The best interests <strong>of</strong> the children in <strong>this</strong> case required orders awarding residence to<br />
the mother, contact to the father and refusing the mother’s application to relocate.<br />
The main factors leading to <strong>this</strong> decision were:<br />
a. the mother was the primary carer and the more experienced parent<br />
b. the children were living in a safe, secure and settled environment, well<br />
established in schools and sporting activities<br />
c. the mobility rights <strong>of</strong> the primary carer can and should yield to what was<br />
in the best interests <strong>of</strong> the children. Allowing the relocation would have<br />
disadvantaged the children more than it would have benefited them<br />
d. the children had a need for their father as adult male role model<br />
e. the eldest child was strongly opposed to the relocation<br />
f. the Judge was not satisfied that the mother would be overly unhappy or unduly<br />
stressed in Australia<br />
g. the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia is unapologetically pro-contact, and the <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Act 1975 places heavy emphasis on the children’s right and need to have<br />
regular contact with both parents<br />
h. the father was an active participant in the children’s lives, and<br />
i. the children had not foregone opportunities to forge links with their Maori heritage<br />
any more now than they had done since the parties came to live in Australia.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 83
Children — Contact — Child made aware <strong>of</strong> father’s existence one year prior to<br />
application — Consideration <strong>of</strong> the practical content <strong>of</strong> the statutory concept <strong>of</strong><br />
parental responsibility.<br />
W v G (No 2) [2005] FamCA 617, (2005) FLC 93-248, 8 July 2005<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Carmody J<br />
This was an application for contact made by the biological father <strong>of</strong> a 13-year-old girl,<br />
R, in circumstances in which R was made aware <strong>of</strong> his existence and identity the year<br />
before and the mother and attachment father were opposed to contact. The mother<br />
sought that the father’s application be dismissed and a no-contact order with the<br />
possible exception <strong>of</strong> a one-<strong>of</strong>f letter <strong>of</strong> introduction and a photograph.<br />
The parties lived together from August 1990 and separated in 1992 when the child,<br />
R, was one month old. The father had not had contact with the child since 1992. The<br />
father had a history <strong>of</strong> criminal activity and illicit drug use. He was homosexual and had<br />
been diagnosed with hepatitis C and HIV. His infection with the HIV virus was chronic<br />
but manageable.<br />
The father’s application for contact was filed in July 2002. In May 2004, the trial Judge<br />
made an order compelling the mother to inform the child <strong>of</strong> her heritage (W and G<br />
(No 1) (2005) FLC 93-247). This was done in September 2004 with the assistance <strong>of</strong><br />
Ms M, a trained social worker and court counsellor. The father proposed an order for<br />
preliminary contact by letter, followed by short periods <strong>of</strong> supervised contact <strong>of</strong> no<br />
more than once each two months as recommended by the child’s representative or<br />
<strong>Court</strong> counsellor. He did not seek to exercise any parental responsibility or power he<br />
may technically have in relation to R by law.<br />
The family <strong>report</strong>er, Dr M (a further expert witness) and the child representative all<br />
proposed an initial contact visit supervised by a child counsellor to allow R to form her<br />
own opinions about her father with any ongoing contact being left up to R.<br />
Application granted in part.<br />
1. The advantages <strong>of</strong> a contact order being made outweighed the disadvantages. If<br />
no orders were made and it was left up to R to initiate contact, the anxieties <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mother’s household would not be alleviated but might cause contact to take place<br />
under uncontrolled conditions.<br />
2. If R did not have contact with her father, and she probably would not if it were left<br />
up to her, her views in relation to the father would be the product <strong>of</strong> the prejudicial<br />
judgments <strong>of</strong> others and her questions arising from the disclosure <strong>of</strong> her parentage<br />
would not be answered.<br />
84<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
3. <strong>Court</strong> intervention should be limited to facilitating an initial contact between the<br />
father and R. ‘Judicial interference in the performance <strong>of</strong> an aspect <strong>of</strong> parental<br />
responsibility should occur only as a last resort or where the welfare <strong>of</strong> the child will<br />
clearly be advanced by the order being made.’<br />
4. Regular contact was problematic due to risks including:<br />
a. the likelihood that family pressure for R to refrain from having a relationship<br />
with the father would become greater with time and become intolerable for<br />
her<br />
b. possible adverse effects on R’s relationship with her siblings<br />
c. social pressure and shunning amongst R’s peers due to the father’s sexual<br />
orientation and HIV status, and<br />
d. Dr M’s expert evidence was that contact would pre-occupy the mother and<br />
adversely affect R’s happiness. The risk <strong>of</strong> poorer parenting would be substantial<br />
if orders for ongoing contact were made. However, ‘the mother would cope with<br />
some short supervised contact for R’s sake’.<br />
5. One initial contact visit supervised by a <strong>Family</strong> and Child mediator with any further<br />
contact to be instigated by the child.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Application by Official Trustee in Bankruptcy to set aside s 79 orders — Husband and<br />
wife entered into consent orders in 1992 under s 79 — Orders transferred husband’s<br />
interest in a jointly-owned property to the wife — Husband and wife knew <strong>of</strong> but<br />
failed to disclose to the <strong>Court</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> two creditors — Those creditors filed<br />
a petition in bankruptcy against the husband — Whether the consent orders should<br />
be set aside — Whether a new s 79 order should be made, if they are to be set aside.<br />
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Bryan and the Estate <strong>of</strong> Christine Ann Gatenby<br />
(Deceased) [2005] FamCA 1163, (2006) FLC 93-258, (2005) 35 FamLR 17,<br />
1 December 2005<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Young J<br />
In 1992, the husband and the wife entered into a s 79 consent order. It provided, inter<br />
alia, that the husband transfer his interest in a jointly-owned parcel <strong>of</strong> real estate to the<br />
wife. The husband and wife knew <strong>of</strong> but did not disclose to the <strong>Court</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong><br />
two <strong>of</strong> the husband’s creditors. The transfer did not take place initially due to a caveat<br />
lodged against the title by the creditors. The caveat lapsed in 1997 due to the effluxion<br />
<strong>of</strong> time, and, despite the existence <strong>of</strong> an injunction prohibiting it, the transfer was<br />
effected shortly after the caveat lapsed.<br />
The husband was made bankrupt by petition <strong>of</strong> the creditors, and after a considerable<br />
length <strong>of</strong> time had passed, the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy applied for the 1992<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 85
consent order to be set aside under s 79(1)(a). After the evidence had been heard but<br />
before judgment was delivered, the wife was killed tragically in a car accident. The<br />
wife’s personal representatives took the wife’s place in the proceedings.<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
There were bankruptcy proceedings pending in the Federal <strong>Court</strong>. Counsel for the<br />
Official Trustee submitted that the Official Trustee was a person affected by the<br />
Order, and that the failure to disclose to the <strong>Court</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> the creditors<br />
meant a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice had occurred. It was submitted that the transfer should<br />
be reversed, so that the husband was restored to the position he was in prior to the<br />
consent orders.<br />
Held: Application granted.<br />
1. There was a deliberate and intentional suppression <strong>of</strong> evidence by the husband and<br />
wife and the wilful concealment was considerably more than a failure to disclose<br />
relevant information.<br />
2. Ordinarily, a failure to make <strong>full</strong> and frank disclosure will amount to a miscarriage <strong>of</strong><br />
justice. There was a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice in <strong>this</strong> case.<br />
3. There was a prejudice to unsecured creditors and the true financial circumstances<br />
and all liabilities should have been brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in<br />
1992. It is proper and it should be open to the Official Trustee to have standing in<br />
<strong>this</strong> case.<br />
4. There is a requirement that the applicants demonstrate how they have been<br />
affected, to prove a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice and further that the s 79 order be proved<br />
to be inequitable and unfair. The Official Trustee is a person affected by the<br />
consent order.<br />
5. There was a reasonable explanation for the delay in the Official Trustee in bringing<br />
the proceedings to set aside the 1992 consent order.<br />
6. There was no hardship or prejudice to the husband or the wife (or her representatives)<br />
in setting aside the order; the wife had benefited from her ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property, including using it for security to raise finances for other investments.<br />
7. The 1992 consent order to be set aside only ins<strong>of</strong>ar as it relates to the transfer <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parcel <strong>of</strong> jointly-owned real estate, and no s 79 order to be made in substitution.<br />
86<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Costs — Costs agreements — Whether agreements should be set aside on grounds<br />
<strong>of</strong> unfairness and unreasonableness — Whether legal practitioner estopped from<br />
claiming costs in excess <strong>of</strong> assertion as to estimated total costs at settlement<br />
conference — <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 1984 O 38 rr 8A, 26 — Accrued jurisdiction<br />
— Dispute over agreement compromising costs under original costs agreement<br />
— Whether dispute over second agreement within accrued jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> — Relevant principles.<br />
MG v WJG [2005] FamCA 1381, (2005) 34 Fam LR 612, 18 November 2005<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia before Benjamin J<br />
The applicant wife disputed the costs and disbursements claimed by the respondent<br />
legal practitioner for work undertaken by him as solicitor acting for her in a property<br />
dispute. She sought orders setting aside both the original costs agreement made on<br />
10 June 2003, and a second agreement made on 10 March 2004 (compromising a claim<br />
for costs under the first agreement), on the basis that the agreements were not fair and<br />
reasonable, and that she had been fraudulently induced to enter those agreements. She<br />
also sought an order that the legal practitioner’s costs and disbursements be capped at<br />
$100,000, in accordance with an oral agreement which she claimed was made in the<br />
course <strong>of</strong> a property settlement conference on 2 September 2005, which led to the wife<br />
agreeing to settle her claim.<br />
Part 5<br />
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS<br />
Evidence was also given <strong>of</strong> an assertion by the legal practitioner to Guest J at that<br />
conference that the wife’s overall costs including counsel’s fees to that time totalled<br />
$175,000. (Counsel’s fees at that time amounted to $94,710, but were subsequently<br />
reduced by counsel at W’s request to $70,000.)<br />
Held: Set aside the first agreement refused but making orders setting aside the second<br />
agreement, and declaring that the respondent was estopped from claiming more than<br />
$80,290 for his costs and disbursements.<br />
1. In relation to the first costs agreement, there was no issue as to the formal validity <strong>of</strong><br />
the agreement, nor had there been evidence <strong>of</strong> undue influence, misrepresentation<br />
or fraud in respect <strong>of</strong> the agreement. The wife was advised <strong>of</strong> her entitlement to<br />
obtain independent legal advice at the relevant time and chose not to do so.<br />
2. Applying the relevant objective test, the agreement appeared to be fair and<br />
reasonable, taking into account circumstances surrounding the formation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
agreement including the experience <strong>of</strong> the legal practitioner, the complexity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
wife’s property matter and the fact that the wife had tested the legal market prior to<br />
retaining the legal practitioner. There was accordingly no basis for setting aside the<br />
first costs agreement. McInnes v Twigg (1993) FLC 92-345; Weiss v Barker Gosling (1993)<br />
FLC 92-399 applied.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 87
SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENTS Part 5<br />
3. The second agreement did not deal with costs and disbursements to be charged<br />
into the future, but was an agreement between the legal practitioner and the wife<br />
compromising a claim for costs under the first costs agreement. As such, the second<br />
agreement was not one to which O 38 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 1984 (in force at the<br />
relevant time) applied. Aarons v Knowles (1995) FLC 92-627; Re P’s Bill <strong>of</strong> Costs (1982)<br />
FLC 91-255 applied.<br />
4. The <strong>Court</strong> nonetheless had jurisdiction to determine the wife’s application to set<br />
aside the agreement, under its accrued jurisdiction. There were significant issues<br />
relating to costs and the nature <strong>of</strong> the costs relationship between the wife and the<br />
legal practitioner. The determination <strong>of</strong> the second agreement formed part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
common substratum <strong>of</strong> facts, and was part <strong>of</strong> the whole costs dispute that existed<br />
between the same parties: Warby v Warby (2002) FLC 93-091 applied.<br />
5. The second agreement was created between a legal practitioner and an<br />
unrepresented client. The wife sought an itemised bill <strong>of</strong> costs, to which she was<br />
entitled under both the agreement and the rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. She was provided with a<br />
single line setting out the number <strong>of</strong> hours in a bill and there was no effective way<br />
that she could make any objective assessment as to the value <strong>of</strong> the work claimed by<br />
the legal practitioner. The legal practitioner was the dominant party at the time, and<br />
was in a fiduciary relationship with the wife. Although there was no suggestion that<br />
the legal practitioner was guilty <strong>of</strong> dishonesty or moral obliquity in dealing with the<br />
wife, nevertheless the second agreement should be set aside. Commercial Bank <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 considered.<br />
6. There was no evidence that the legal practitioner and the wife reached an<br />
agreement during the property settlement conference <strong>of</strong> 2 September 2005 that<br />
the legal practitioner’s costs should be capped at $100,000.<br />
7. The legal practitioner’s asserted estimate <strong>of</strong> costs during that conference at $175,000<br />
including counsel’s fees, in circumstances that led the wife to rely on that assertion<br />
and to compromise her property claim, was sufficient to create an estoppel. The<br />
legal practitioner knew or ought to have known at the settlement conference the<br />
total <strong>of</strong> costs and disbursements to that time, including counsel’s fees ($94,710 at<br />
that time, but subsequently reduced by counsel to $70,000). The legal practitioner<br />
was thus estopped from claiming costs and disbursements (excluding counsel’s<br />
fees) <strong>of</strong> more that $80,290 on taxation <strong>of</strong> costs, and was estopped from claiming<br />
more than $70,000 for counsel’s fees.<br />
88<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Part 6
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
90<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Management <strong>of</strong> Human Resources<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the human resources management framework is to align the workforce<br />
with the <strong>Court</strong>’s strategic direction. Implementation <strong>of</strong> strategies arising out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
framework have formed the basis <strong>of</strong> activities during 2005-06. The main focus areas<br />
included:<br />
Improving Human Resource service delivery through initiatives such as the<br />
introduction <strong>of</strong> electronic forms for recruitment activities which include a more<br />
effective non-ongoing employees’ form.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Workplace Wellbeing policies that guide the <strong>Court</strong>’s position<br />
and actions in relation to:<br />
− work attendance procedures<br />
− workers’ compensation<br />
− psychological injury<br />
− injury management and return to work<br />
− appointment <strong>of</strong> fire wardens and first aid <strong>of</strong>ficers, and<br />
− attendance management.<br />
Reaching a target <strong>of</strong> 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> eligible employees with performance<br />
development plans in place by 1 July 2006, as per the <strong>Court</strong>’s Certified Agreement<br />
2005–2007. By the end <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong>ing year, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> had exceeded the<br />
target with 83.51 per cent <strong>of</strong> employees having a plan in place.<br />
Progression <strong>of</strong> a recruitment and retention strategy to attract mature age and<br />
Indigenous employees. A traineeship program is also being developed to encourage<br />
the placement <strong>of</strong> school leavers in administrative roles within the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> transferred its Human Resources Payroll System to an in-house operation<br />
from 1 July 2005. The benefits <strong>of</strong> bringing the system in-house include:<br />
complete control <strong>of</strong> data within the system<br />
ability to have an interface between human resources and finance systems, reducing<br />
the risk <strong>of</strong> data corruption and meeting internal audit recommendations on data<br />
transfer<br />
immediate access to the Payroll System Query Tool, improving the efficiency and<br />
accuracy <strong>of</strong> <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
complete control over system configuration and flexibility to best meet the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Court</strong>, and<br />
access to all payroll system modules allowing for future improvements to system<br />
functionality in areas other than payroll.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 91
Workforce planning, retention and turnover<br />
WORKFORCE PLANNING<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> focused on four main aspects <strong>of</strong> workforce planning during 2005-06 as<br />
outlined below.<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s Performance Development System (PDS) has undergone further review<br />
to enhance the performance analysis process and provide tools for all staff to aid the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> performance development plans.<br />
The workforce plan, which aims to provide effective recruitment, selection and<br />
retention strategies and policies to help attract and retain employees, is under review.<br />
An updated workforce pr<strong>of</strong>ile, currently being completed, will inform the review in<br />
conjunction with a Manager’s Toolkit being developed to assist with the application <strong>of</strong><br />
the plan.<br />
A draft set <strong>of</strong> Work Level standards were developed and have undergone intensive<br />
scrutiny to ensure their applicability to the <strong>Court</strong> environment. The standards will<br />
provide managers with a direct reference to the required skills <strong>of</strong> positions and assist in<br />
the determination <strong>of</strong> suitable duties and selection criteria for positions.<br />
In response to the State <strong>of</strong> the Service Report, the Australian Public Service Commission<br />
recently released a series <strong>of</strong> publications titled Turned up and Tuned In, related to<br />
attendance management. The <strong>Court</strong> has embraced the Turned up and Tuned In initiative<br />
and intends to progress key activities throughout 2006-07 to increase productivity<br />
and continue to improve rates <strong>of</strong> absenteeism across the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
WORKFORCE RETENTION<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> currently employs several retention strategies including work-life balance<br />
practices, such as flexible working arrangements, self-paced learning and pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
development training opportunities. In addition, employees entitled to maternity leave<br />
under the Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973 receive an extra two<br />
weeks paid leave if they return to work following the completion <strong>of</strong> maternity leave.<br />
To recognise the achievements, contributions and innovations made by employees or<br />
teams <strong>of</strong> employees, the <strong>Court</strong> encourages staff to nominate co-workers for the annual<br />
Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award Scheme. The award, which is in addition<br />
to the Australia Day medallions awarded by the Chief Justice, was previously known<br />
as the Excellence in Performance Award Scheme, and is managed by the <strong>Court</strong>’s Staff<br />
Development Committee.<br />
92<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Ten places in the National Public Sector Management Program (NPSMP) have been<br />
made available for employees following a review <strong>of</strong> the 2006 options for the Leadership<br />
Development Program – part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s commitment to the pr<strong>of</strong>essional development<br />
<strong>of</strong> employees. Staff undertaking the NPSMP will have the opportunity to obtain a<br />
Graduate Certificate in Public Sector Management or Management.<br />
WORKFORCE TURNOVER<br />
During 2005-06, 100 employees and judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers exited the <strong>Court</strong>. This represents<br />
a turnover <strong>of</strong> 13.04 per cent against total staff numbers as at 30 June 2006. Of these<br />
100 employees, 78 were ongoing employees and 22 were non-ongoing employees.<br />
Table 1 details reasons for exit.<br />
Table 1: Workforce turnover<br />
Employment Type Exits Reason<br />
Ongoing staff (80.44 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
37 Resigned<br />
total <strong>Court</strong> staff at 30 June 2006)<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Non-ongoing (10.43 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
total <strong>Court</strong> staff at 30 June 2006)<br />
Public Office Holder (5.21 per cent<br />
<strong>of</strong> total <strong>Court</strong> staff at 30 June 2006)<br />
5 Voluntary Redundancy<br />
20 Inter-departmental transfer<br />
2 Retired age 60 to 65<br />
5 Retired before age 60<br />
2 Dismissed<br />
2 Deceased<br />
18 Resigned<br />
4 Termination - Unspecified<br />
5 Retired<br />
(NOTE: The above figures do not include non-ongoing employees whose engagements<br />
have reached natural expiration.)<br />
There were 767 employees (excluding intermittent non-ongoing employees) and<br />
judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers employed by the <strong>Court</strong> as at 30 June 2006. Of these:<br />
123 had been with the <strong>Court</strong> less than 12 months<br />
172 had been with the <strong>Court</strong> between one and two years<br />
224 had been with the <strong>Court</strong> between two and five years, and<br />
248 had been with the <strong>Court</strong> for more than five years.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 93
Certified Agreements and Australian Workplace<br />
Agreements (AWAs)<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
The current Certified Agreement will continue to operate until the nominal expiry date<br />
<strong>of</strong> 30 June 2007. Preliminary discussions commenced in March 2006 and negotiations<br />
for a new Agreement are due to commence in late 2006.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s AWA template was reviewed in accordance with the Work Choices<br />
legislation introduced in March 2006. The new template has been endorsed by the<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the Employee Advocate.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> staff<br />
Staffing Overview<br />
As at 30 June 2006, the <strong>Court</strong> had 672 employees (excluding judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers, the Chief<br />
Executive Officer (CEO) and intermittent non-ongoing employees) covered by the<br />
Certified Agreement, with another 47 covered by AWAs (34 non-SES and 13 SES). The<br />
judicial <strong>of</strong>ficers and CEO are covered by Remuneration Tribunal Determinations.<br />
Of the total 719 staff, there were 223 males and 496 females.<br />
Staff by Location<br />
(Actual occupancy as at 30 June 2006 – includes <strong>full</strong>- and part-time staff with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> intermittent non-ongoing employees.)<br />
Table 2: Staffing overview by location<br />
Level CJ NSW VIC QLD SA NT TAS ACT NSO Total<br />
SES2 - - 1 2 1 - - - 2 6<br />
SES1 1 1 1 1 - - - - 4 8<br />
EL2 2 25 19 16 8 1 3 3 18 95<br />
EL1 - 27 23 22 7 2 5 7 23 116<br />
APS6 3 4 2 2 - - 2 - 22 35<br />
APS5 - 29 17 18 11 5 1 1 20 102<br />
APS4 2 21 19 18 7 - 3 4 19 93<br />
APS3 - 48 35 32 17 5 6 4 18 165<br />
APS2 - 33 27 23 7 - 3 5 - 98<br />
APS1 - 1 - - - - - - - 1<br />
TOTAL 8 189 144 134 58 13 23 24 126 719<br />
(NOTE: The judges and Chief Executive Officer, who are holders <strong>of</strong> public <strong>of</strong>fice, are not<br />
included in the above table.)<br />
94<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Legend<br />
SES Senior Executive Service <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
CJ Office <strong>of</strong> Chief Justice, Melbourne<br />
NSO National Support Office, Canberra<br />
Judges and judicial registrars (as at 30 June 2006)<br />
New South Wales 15 judges 3 judicial registrars<br />
Victoria<br />
1 chief justice<br />
10 judges 1 judicial registrar<br />
Queensland 8 judges 1 judicial registrar<br />
South Australia 4 judges 1 judicial registrar<br />
Tasmania<br />
1 judge<br />
Australian Capital Territory<br />
2 judges<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Of the 41 judges (including the Chief Justice) there were 15 women and 26 men. The<br />
six judicial registrars comprised one female and five males.<br />
PRODUCTIVITY GAINS<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s Certified Agreement 2005-2007 introduced a six-day limit in an employee’s<br />
accrual year for personal leave absences for illness or injury. On a month-by-month<br />
comparison the personal leave without certificate for the period January to June<br />
2005 tracked well below the corresponding period in 2004. The average number <strong>of</strong><br />
unscheduled personal leave days per Full-Time Equivalent has decreased from 11.1 in<br />
2004 to 9.2 in 2005. This decreasing trend has continued in 2006.<br />
NON-SALARY BENEFITS<br />
Non-salary benefits are provided to employees with AWAs and generally relate to the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> vehicles, car parking, superannuation, information technology, pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
memberships, and airline club memberships.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 95
PERFORMANCE PAY<br />
During the year performance-based pay was not paid to any SES or non-SES employees.<br />
Table 3: Classification structure and pay rates<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
Aps classification<br />
and no. <strong>of</strong> staff<br />
Salary rates on<br />
1 july 2005<br />
Salary rates on<br />
1 july 2006<br />
APS 1 - 1 employee $32,916 $34,397<br />
$33,807 $35,328<br />
$35,197 $36,781<br />
APS 2 - 98 employees $36,041 $37,663<br />
$38,006 $39,716<br />
$39,968 $41,767<br />
APS 3 - 165 employees $42,118 $44,014<br />
$43,188 $45,131<br />
$44,307 $46,300<br />
APS 4 - 93 employees $47,209 $49,333<br />
$48,436 $50,615<br />
$49,677 $51,912<br />
APS 5 – 102 employees $51,032 $53,329<br />
$52,632 $55,000<br />
$54,114 $56,549<br />
APS 6 - 35 employees $55,119 $57,599<br />
$58,374 $61,001<br />
$63,314 $66,163<br />
EL1 - 116 employees $70,658 $73,838<br />
$73,478 $76,785<br />
$76,298 $79,731<br />
EL2 - 95 employees $81,495 $85,162<br />
$85,974 $89,843<br />
$92,394 $96,552<br />
$93,856 $98,079<br />
$95,482 $99,779<br />
$97,922 $102,328<br />
SES1 - 8 employees $115,000 - $140,000 $130,000 - $165,000<br />
SES2 - 6 employees $140,000 - $160,000 $140,000 - $170,000<br />
96<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)<br />
During 2005-06, the <strong>Court</strong> completed a review <strong>of</strong> its OH&S Policy and Procedures. The<br />
review was undertaken in consultation with employees and the Community and Public<br />
Sector Union.<br />
OH&S committees are in place within the registries, and the National Support Office, in<br />
conjunction with the placement <strong>of</strong> fire wardens, first aid <strong>of</strong>ficers and Health and Safety<br />
Representatives.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> remains focused on the management and reduction <strong>of</strong> high-risk injuries and<br />
aims to maintain a high level <strong>of</strong> employee awareness and knowledge <strong>of</strong> OH&S issues.<br />
Any hazards or incidents are <strong>report</strong>ed to the Human Resources team. The <strong>report</strong>ed<br />
issues are logged on the Hazard Incident database for monitoring.<br />
Table 4: Occupational health and safety premium rate comparison<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
All agencies<br />
(average)<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05<br />
Premium rates* 2.21% 2.02% 1.67%<br />
Claim frequency (claims<br />
0.39 0.44 0.53<br />
per $m payroll) at mid-May 2006)<br />
Average lifetime claim cost to<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> February 2006<br />
$20,242 $22,069 $23,119<br />
(* Figures are reviewed annually and are subject to change based on claims approved<br />
after the review date which can relate to previous periods.)<br />
OH&S activities undertaken by the <strong>Court</strong> during 2005-06 are outlined below.<br />
Employee Assistance Provider (EAP) Promotion<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Court</strong>’s commitment in the Certified Agreement to provide<br />
a supportive working environment, the EAP was re-launched in September 2005. To<br />
increase staff awareness <strong>of</strong> the free, pr<strong>of</strong>essional and confidential services available<br />
from the <strong>Court</strong>’s EAP provider, IPS Worldwide, each employee received a pamphlet and<br />
telephone card advertising available services.<br />
IPS Worldwide provides counselling advice and management assistance through the<br />
Managers HelpLine. The Managers HelpLine is a telephone consulting service designed<br />
especially for managers and supervisors needing practical advice about workplace issues.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 97
In addition to the re-launch, Melbourne Registry hosted a breakfast to raise awareness<br />
<strong>of</strong> EAP services amongst Victorian staff. The <strong>Court</strong>’s CEO, Richard Foster, and a<br />
representative from IPS Worldwide addressed the breakfast gathering.<br />
Regular articles on EAP also appear in the <strong>Court</strong>’s staff newsletter, <strong>Court</strong>side.<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
National Ergonomic Assessment Project<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s undertaking to promote the health and wellbeing <strong>of</strong> its<br />
employees, all staff were <strong>of</strong>fered an ergonomic workstation assessment in May and<br />
June <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong>ing year. Approximately 480 employees were assessed and received<br />
advice about working safely.<br />
Comcare Statement <strong>of</strong> Agreement 2002-12<br />
Achieving the OH&S and rehabilitation performance improvement targets set by<br />
Comcare for 2002-12 is a priority <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s CEO and managerial staff. The <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
aim is to continue to improve performance in workplace safety and injury management<br />
and to ultimately reduce the <strong>Court</strong>’s Comcare premium.<br />
This undertaking was reaffirmed with a Statement <strong>of</strong> Commitment signed by the CEO,<br />
and Ms Barbara Bennett, Comcare CEO, on 5 August 2005.<br />
Flu Vaccination Program<br />
Approximately 340 employees participated in the National Flu Vaccination program<br />
in 2006.<br />
Employees are encouraged to take advantage <strong>of</strong> annual flu vaccinations. The provision<br />
<strong>of</strong> influenza vaccinations is further reflection <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s ongoing interest in<br />
the wellbeing <strong>of</strong> its employees, as well as an acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> the associated<br />
productivity benefits.<br />
Workplace Wellbeing Agreement<br />
The Workplace Wellbeing Agreement was developed through consultation with<br />
<strong>Court</strong> staff and the Community and Public Sector Union. It demonstrates the <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
commitment to the health and wellbeing <strong>of</strong> its staff and recognises that all parties have<br />
a common goal – to reduce the incidence <strong>of</strong> workplace injuries and illness.<br />
The Agreement came into effect on 5 September 2005. It ensures compliance with<br />
section 16(3) <strong>of</strong> the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 and must be<br />
considered in conjunction with the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia’s Certified Agreement<br />
2005‐2007 – Part G, Section 51: Occupational Health and Safety.<br />
98<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The <strong>Court</strong> is working to continually improve its procedures and processes to ensure<br />
industry best practice and invites staff to adopt and contribute to these initiatives. As<br />
part <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> continuous improvement, a formal review <strong>of</strong> the Agreement will occur prior<br />
to 31 December 2007 with suggested changes evaluated by all parties.<br />
National OH&S Committee<br />
The National OH&S Committee was reconvened in the National Support Office (NSO) in<br />
August 2005. This committee meets quarterly to discuss issues <strong>of</strong> OH&S concern within<br />
NSO and the registries.<br />
Key outcomes for the OH&S Committee during 2005-06 are outlined below.<br />
Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs)<br />
Two HSRs (a head and deputy) exist in the majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong> registries and NSO. They<br />
have each attended a five-day training course and are responsible for:<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
conducting twice yearly OH&S inspections in their designated work group areas<br />
alerting their supervisors to issues <strong>of</strong> concern, and<br />
<strong>report</strong>ing unresolved issues <strong>of</strong> concern to the National OH&S Committee.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s HSRs were reinstated for two-year terms in September 2005.<br />
First Aid Officers and Fire Wardens<br />
A database <strong>of</strong> the responsible <strong>of</strong>ficers in each registry has been developed in order to<br />
ensure coverage in all court locations. In addition, a monitoring process in relation to<br />
qualification periods and allowances has been established.<br />
Workplace Harassment Contact Officers<br />
Workplace Harassment Contact Officers were appointed in each registry in August<br />
2005. Staff across the <strong>Court</strong> can discuss issues or concerns about workplace harassment<br />
with any contact <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
The contact <strong>of</strong>ficers will also serve two-year terms.<br />
Hazard Incident Checklist<br />
The Hazard Incident Checklist was introduced in October 2005. It is a comprehensive<br />
checklist designed for the HSRs to <strong>report</strong> all areas <strong>of</strong> potential OH&S concern.<br />
The checklists are expected from registries twice yearly on a staggered timetable. They<br />
are entered into a central database for monitoring purposes. Issues <strong>of</strong> concern that<br />
require follow-up are <strong>report</strong>ed to the National OH&S Committee meeting with actions<br />
delegated to the responsible areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 99
Disability strategy<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s commitment to staff, clients and stakeholders with disabilities is consistent<br />
with the Commonwealth Disability Strategy and its goals to remove barriers and<br />
provide equal opportunity for all Australians.<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> continues to improve accessibility in line with the standards for websites<br />
issued by the Australian Government Information Management Office in 2005.<br />
Other initiatives <strong>this</strong> year included compliance with the Disabled Access Policy which,<br />
through the National Law <strong>Court</strong>s Building Management Committee, is an ongoing<br />
program <strong>of</strong> works to address deficiencies in <strong>this</strong> area. The policy acknowledges a<br />
responsibility to provide and adapt buildings and facilities to ensure people with<br />
disabilities are not discriminated against with regard to building access or use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
facilities within. During 2005-06 improvements to access and facilities for people with<br />
disabilities were carried out. Examples <strong>of</strong> the works completed include the upgrading<br />
<strong>of</strong> the counters at Wollongong Registry.<br />
Workplace Diversity Plan<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> is currently reviewing its Workplace Diversity Plan in conjunction with the<br />
Guidelines on Workplace Diversity, released by the Australian Public Service Commission,<br />
to ensure continued integration <strong>of</strong> the APS Values and Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct more<br />
effectively.<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> information<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> received three Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information requests during the year. There<br />
were no matters outstanding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at the end<br />
<strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
Facilities for Access<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information requests are handled at a national level. The Freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
Information Act 1982 does not apply to any request for access to a document <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>, unless the document relates to matters <strong>of</strong> an administrative nature — see section<br />
5 <strong>of</strong> the Act. Broadly speaking, <strong>this</strong> means that the Act does not apply to documents<br />
related to the exercise <strong>of</strong> the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
The availability <strong>of</strong> documents outside the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act is subject to the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 and the <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules that generally confine access to <strong>Court</strong> files<br />
or registry indexes to parties to particular proceedings or their representatives.<br />
100<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Facilities for examining documents and obtaining copies are available at the <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
registries and <strong>of</strong>fices. Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information enquiries should be directed to the<br />
FOI Coordinator.<br />
Single copies <strong>of</strong> all printed materials listed below that may be obtained outside <strong>of</strong><br />
the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act can be obtained free <strong>of</strong> charge upon request from<br />
all court registries.<br />
Categories <strong>of</strong> documents<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> maintains the following categories <strong>of</strong> documents:<br />
general correspondence<br />
client feedback correspondence<br />
those concerning the development and implementation <strong>of</strong> policy<br />
those concerning administration and financial aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong><br />
those concerning research projects, including statistical information gathered by<br />
<strong>Court</strong> staff<br />
those concerning security aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong><br />
personnel files<br />
case files, comprising all documents filed (for example, formal applications and<br />
supporting affidavits) and records <strong>of</strong> all orders made in court proceedings<br />
an alphabetical index in each registry (in card form or computerised recording<br />
system) <strong>of</strong> all proceedings commenced or continued in that registry<br />
mediator interview records (hard<strong>copy</strong> and/or computerised) that chronicle the<br />
particulars <strong>of</strong> any people presenting themselves to the mediation section <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> (whether voluntary or under court direction), and<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> non-payment <strong>of</strong> filing fees with the results endorsed.<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Other documents<br />
In 2005-06, the documents below were made available to clients <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> free <strong>of</strong><br />
charge upon request (outside the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act 1982).<br />
Prescribed Brochures<br />
Before you file - pre-action procedure for parenting cases (distributed in accordance<br />
with FLR 1.05 and Schedule 1)<br />
Before you file - pre-action procedure for financial cases (distributed in accordance with<br />
FLR 1.05 and Schedule 1)<br />
Child Support Applications (served in accordance with Rule 4.23(2))<br />
Conference <strong>of</strong> Experts (distributed in accordance with Rule 15.69)<br />
Costs Notice (distributed in accordance with Chapter 19)<br />
Enforcement hearings (served in accordance with Rule 20.11(3)(b))<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 101
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
Marriage, Families and Separation (distributed in accordance with Part IIIA <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Act 1975)<br />
Maintenance Applications (served in accordance with Rule 4.13)<br />
Production <strong>of</strong> documents (served in accordance with Rule 13.33(3)(a))<br />
Subpoena - information for named person (served with a subpoena) (in accordance<br />
with Rule 15.28)<br />
Third party debt notices (served in accordance with Rule 20.33)<br />
Prescribed Forms<br />
There were 34 prescribed <strong>Family</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> forms at 30 June 2006. These<br />
are set out in Schedule 2 to the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004. Printed copies<br />
for clients are available from all court<br />
registries.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> also provides a wide<br />
range <strong>of</strong> non-prescribed forms and<br />
general information materials such<br />
as do-it-yourself kits, fact sheets,<br />
brochures and booklets. These are<br />
available from the <strong>Court</strong>’s registries<br />
and/or its website.<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ CD mailer, developed in 2005, provides<br />
information, forms and brochures for the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal<br />
Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> on one compact disc. To date 35,000 CD mailers<br />
have been distributed to registries and clients<br />
Service Charter<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s Service Charter is available at all court locations. It sets out<br />
how clients and other users <strong>of</strong> court services may make suggestions or complaints<br />
regarding services, policy, practices or charges. This information is also available on<br />
the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> website.<br />
Client feedback and complaints management<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has implemented a new client feedback management system, which<br />
enables all areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> to efficiently manage complaints and client feedback<br />
in a consistent manner. The new system has also improved complaint management<br />
processes and <strong>report</strong>ing.<br />
The changes incorporated include refinement <strong>of</strong> fields for easier identification <strong>of</strong> issues<br />
raised by complainants and changes to the <strong>report</strong>ing facility to provide for improved<br />
operational and management monitoring.<br />
102<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> took these steps to meet the recommendations made by the ANAO<br />
in Audit Report No. 46 2003-04 in relation to improving the complaints handling<br />
procedures.<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s Client Feedback and Complaints policy was revised to provide<br />
for complaints which substantially address judicial conduct or delays in reserved<br />
judgments, to be managed centrally within the Deputy Chief Justice’s Chambers.<br />
Information sheets on how to handle enquiries and complaints have been made<br />
available to all registries and also posted on the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s website. The<br />
information sheets also include details on how clients may provide feedback via<br />
email to . The <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> brochure, Do You<br />
Have a Complaint?, has also been updated and made available on the <strong>Court</strong>’s website<br />
and from client service areas in all registries.<br />
During the year the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> recorded 272 complaints. This is a reduction <strong>of</strong><br />
26.3 per cent from the 369 complaints recorded last financial year. The reduction is in<br />
part due to the quality <strong>of</strong> information provided to clients at the first point <strong>of</strong> contact,<br />
particularly with regard to clarifying what cannot be dealt with outside <strong>of</strong> proceedings<br />
before the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
The total number <strong>of</strong> complaints represents approximately 0.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> all<br />
applications received by the <strong>Court</strong> during the year.<br />
External scrutiny<br />
Subsequent to the ANAO’s Audit Report No. 46 2003-04, in April 2005 the Joint Standing<br />
Committee on Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) held a public hearing to review<br />
progress made against the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the audit <strong>report</strong>.<br />
Report 404, the JCPAA’s review <strong>of</strong> Auditor General’s Reports 2003-2004, Third & Fourth<br />
Quarters: and First and Second Quarters <strong>of</strong> 2004-2005, was subsequently tabled on<br />
7 November 2005. The <strong>Court</strong> responded to the review on 21 November 2005 and again<br />
during May 2006 with progress <strong>report</strong>s against the recommendations.<br />
Additionally, the <strong>Court</strong>’s Children’s Cases Program was evaluated by two external<br />
experts during the <strong>report</strong>ing year.<br />
Purchasing<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s Contracts Unit supports the continual development <strong>of</strong> a sound contracting<br />
and purchasing environment. Ongoing improvements have realised a range <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
to the <strong>Court</strong> including financial savings and service improvements. Contracting and<br />
purchasing activities are constantly being reviewed to ensure that the <strong>Court</strong> meets its<br />
legislative requirements and achieves value for money.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 103
Commonwealth procurement requirements, including those addressing competitive<br />
tendering and contracting, are contained in the <strong>Court</strong>’s Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs).<br />
During 2005-06 the policies and procedures were updated to support the CEIs.<br />
Improvements to contract and purchasing activities included:<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
ongoing review <strong>of</strong> current contracts and procurement activities<br />
revised processes for the management <strong>of</strong> contracts<br />
updated contract formats that reflect current changes in the market<br />
enhancements to the <strong>Court</strong>’s contract procurement database to assist contract<br />
managers and facilitate mandatory <strong>report</strong>ing, such as Senate Orders, and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a procurement framework and suite <strong>of</strong> templates (forms) and<br />
supporting tools to ensure the devolved procurement environment maximises<br />
contract outcomes and efficiency.<br />
Property<br />
During 2005-06, the <strong>Court</strong> progressed its refurbishment program in accordance with<br />
the National Property Strategy formulated in 2004-05. The aim <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> program is to<br />
continually review and improve the physical environment in which the <strong>Court</strong> conducts<br />
its business.<br />
The property related activities that were undertaken at various court locations during<br />
the <strong>report</strong>ing period are outlined below.<br />
Cairns<br />
Levels 3 and 4 were refurbished to provide an additional court and chambers.<br />
Alterations were made to the registry to provide sit-down counters and additional<br />
public waiting space.<br />
Wollongong<br />
Additional space was acquired to accommodate the installation <strong>of</strong> x-ray scanning<br />
equipment. Client Service areas were altered to provide sit-down counters, and staff<br />
amenities were refurbished.<br />
104<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Parramatta<br />
Fit-out alterations were undertaken on Level<br />
3 to accommodate the new National Enquiry<br />
Centre (NEC).<br />
Since opening in April 2006, staff at the National<br />
Enquiry Centre, have handled on average almost<br />
1000 calls and 230 email enquiries per day. The NEC,<br />
based at Parramatta Registry, employs 21 specially<br />
trained staff<br />
Sydney<br />
Townsville<br />
Open-plan space was converted into three<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices for mediators, and joinery alterations<br />
were made in one court.<br />
Darwin<br />
Minor refit alterations were made in the<br />
Registry.<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Fit-out alterations and general refurbishment<br />
work was carried out on Level 1 <strong>of</strong> the Lionel<br />
Bowen Building to allow for the co-location <strong>of</strong><br />
client services staff from Levels 1 and 8.<br />
Adelaide<br />
The Adelaide Registry was relocated from the<br />
Grenfell Centre to the new Commonwealth Law<br />
<strong>Court</strong>s Building (CLC) premises. As part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
CLC building fit-out, furniture and equipment was<br />
procured and installed. Additionally, construction<br />
variations and additional works were managed.<br />
The new Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s building<br />
in Adelaide, <strong>of</strong>ficially opened in February 2006<br />
Newcastle<br />
A detailed design and technical specification was developed to facilitate the<br />
procurement <strong>of</strong> new accommodation in Newcastle. New accommodation is required in<br />
Newcastle when the existing lease <strong>of</strong> the Bolton Street premises expires in July 2008. A<br />
‘Request for Tender’ process to identify prospective sites for the new accommodation<br />
was progressed during 2005-06. Negotiations for a ‘pre-commitment lease’ commenced<br />
during the <strong>report</strong>ing period.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 105
Canberra<br />
Levels 2 and 3 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s National Support Office were refurbished for the colocation<br />
<strong>of</strong> functional groups and to optimise the use <strong>of</strong> the space.<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
Additionally, the design and documentation <strong>of</strong> projects scheduled for 2006-07 were<br />
completed in the <strong>report</strong>ing period. These include:<br />
the refurbishment <strong>of</strong> the courtrooms at the Canberra Registry<br />
alteration to the client services reception area in the Brisbane Registry to provide sitdown<br />
counters<br />
improvements to the child assessment area at Hobart Registry<br />
general refurbishment to improve operational efficiency, appearance and general<br />
presentation <strong>of</strong> the premises in Albury, Dandenong and Launceston registries, and<br />
minor fit-out alterations at the Melbourne Registry.<br />
Consultants and competitive tendering<br />
There were no contracts let to other organisations for the delivery <strong>of</strong> services previously<br />
performed by the <strong>Court</strong> during the <strong>report</strong>ing period.<br />
Consultants<br />
During 2005-06, 14 new consultancy contracts were entered into involving total<br />
actual expenditure <strong>of</strong> $581,989 (refer Table 5). In addition, 15 ongoing consultancy<br />
contracts were active during the 2005-06 year involving total actual expenditure<br />
<strong>of</strong> $229,317.<br />
Exempt Contracts<br />
No contracts or standing orders were exempt from publication in the Purchasing<br />
and Disposal Gazette in terms <strong>of</strong> the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act 1982 during the<br />
<strong>report</strong>ing period.<br />
106<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Table 5: Consultant services contracts let during 2005-06<br />
Name Description <strong>of</strong> Service Amount Process /<br />
Reason<br />
Ainslie, Bell<br />
& Murchison<br />
Architects Pty Ltd<br />
Alan Piper<br />
Consulting<br />
Honourable<br />
Richard Chisolm<br />
Connley Walker<br />
Prepare technical design brief for <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
accommodation<br />
Consultancy services for leased<br />
property contract negotiations<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> consultancy service for<br />
creation <strong>of</strong> judicial education materials<br />
Security review <strong>of</strong> access control<br />
systems in <strong>Court</strong> buildings<br />
$59,510 3/B<br />
$75,000 3/A<br />
$25,000 3/B<br />
$21,945 3/B<br />
Connley Walker Security risk assessment $79,300 1/A<br />
Crosby|Textor<br />
Incognition Pty Ltd<br />
Lambart (Sage)<br />
Consulting Pty Ltd<br />
Lincolne Scott<br />
Myriad<br />
Consultants<br />
Orygen Research<br />
Centre<br />
Richard McPhetres<br />
Stace<br />
Management<br />
Yarrendale<br />
Enterprises<br />
Facilitation <strong>of</strong> a strategic<br />
communications workshop<br />
Advise on, conduct and develop<br />
recommendations for a high level<br />
metadata review<br />
Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Mental Health Support<br />
Pilot Project<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> engineering project<br />
services brief for <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> consultation and training<br />
services on cross-cultural issues for<br />
court staff<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> training, support and<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> skilling and protocols for<br />
the Mental Health Support Pilot Project<br />
Advise on project and program<br />
management<br />
Facilitation <strong>of</strong> the National Magellan<br />
Forum<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> advice, expertise and input<br />
to project and program management<br />
$13,750 3/A/C<br />
$21,863 1/A<br />
$21,120 1/A<br />
$20,000 3/A<br />
$73,920 2/B<br />
$90,000 1/A<br />
$20,000 3/B<br />
$17,840 3/B/C<br />
$74,920 2/A<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
Legend<br />
Selection Process<br />
1 Publicly advertised<br />
tender<br />
Reason<br />
A Project required specialist knowledge and/or skills<br />
not available within the <strong>Court</strong><br />
2 Selective tender B Consultant was a recognised expert in the field and/or<br />
had particular skills/experience gained from similar<br />
work for the <strong>Court</strong><br />
3 Direct engagement C Project required input from a person/organisation<br />
accepted as independent from the <strong>Court</strong><br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 107
Discretionary grants<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> made no discretionary grants during 2005-06.<br />
Ecologically sustainable development <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
other <strong>report</strong>ing Part 6<br />
During 2005-06 there were no matters or <strong>report</strong>s under <strong>this</strong> legislation.<br />
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> is seeking to minimise the impact <strong>of</strong> its activities on the environment<br />
through the following measures:<br />
Cooling towers and water features in court buildings are regularly tested in<br />
accordance with Commonwealth, state and local statutory requirements, including<br />
testing for Legionella bacteria.<br />
National repair and maintenance contracts are in place for Commonwealth-owned<br />
and privately leased court buildings which has improved accountability, value for<br />
money and consistency <strong>of</strong> maintenance standards and <strong>report</strong>ing.<br />
National repair and maintenance contracts also consolidate <strong>report</strong>ing and<br />
contractual arrangements to achieve the highest possible benefit. This includes<br />
the consolidation <strong>of</strong> waste disposal contracts, improved energy <strong>report</strong>ing and<br />
benchmarking.<br />
Site audits on utility (water, gas and electricity) use and supply, as well as<br />
consumption data analysis, are regularly undertaken across the <strong>Court</strong>’s tenancies to<br />
identify opportunities to reduce utility usage where possible.<br />
Energy consumption data is provided to the Australian Greenhouse Office as part <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Court</strong>’s obligations to the Whole <strong>of</strong> Government Energy Report.<br />
In respect <strong>of</strong> other <strong>report</strong>ing requirements:<br />
The nature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s core business, outcomes and activities is such that its<br />
activities do not impact on or affect the principles <strong>of</strong> ecologically sustainable<br />
development. The <strong>Court</strong> does not administer any legislation with ecologically<br />
sustainable development implications.<br />
No outcomes specified for the <strong>Court</strong> in the Appropriations Act will contribute to<br />
ecologically sustainable development.<br />
The main impact <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s activities on the environment is the consumption <strong>of</strong><br />
energy and water in leased premises and in the Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s buildings.<br />
108<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Advertising and market research<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> spent a total <strong>of</strong> $121,901 on advertising during the year comprising:<br />
$106,235 HMA Blaze Pty<br />
$7741 APS Gazette<br />
$4179 Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Careers Australia P/L<br />
$2202 Manpower Services<br />
$794 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd<br />
$380 SEEK Communications<br />
$180 Australian Psychological Society<br />
$136 Australian Association <strong>of</strong> Social Workers<br />
$55 University <strong>of</strong> Technology, Sydney Financial Services Unit<br />
During the year the <strong>Court</strong> also spent $14,563 on a public opinion survey conducted by<br />
Newspoll Market Research.<br />
Part 6<br />
Other <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
The <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s website went live in April 2006. The site is intended to provide a single online entry point<br />
to the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> where users can access a range <strong>of</strong> information including court<br />
forms and brochures.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 109
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS<br />
Part 7
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
112<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Financial statements FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2006<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
Independent Audit Report 114<br />
Statement by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Finance Officer 117<br />
Income Statement 118<br />
Balance Sheet 119<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows 120<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Changes in Equity 121<br />
Schedule <strong>of</strong> Commitments 122<br />
Schedule <strong>of</strong> Contingencies 123<br />
Schedule <strong>of</strong> Administered Items 124<br />
Note 1: Summary <strong>of</strong> Significant Accounting Policies 126<br />
Note 2: The Impact <strong>of</strong> the Transition to AEIFRS from Previous AGAAP 135<br />
Note 3: Events after the Balance Sheet Date 136<br />
Note 4: Income 137<br />
Note 5: Operating Expenses 138<br />
Note 6: Financial Assets 140<br />
Note 7: Non-Financial Assets 141<br />
Note 8: Payables 145<br />
Note 9: Provisions 146<br />
Note 10: Cash Flow Reconciliation 147<br />
Note 11: Contingent Liabilities and Assets 147<br />
Note 12: Executive Remuneration 148<br />
Note 13: Remuneration <strong>of</strong> Auditors 148<br />
Note 14: Average Staffing Levels 148<br />
Note 15: Financial Instruments 149<br />
Note 16: Income Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 151<br />
Note 17: Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 151<br />
Note 18: Assets Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 151<br />
Note 19: Liabilities Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 151<br />
Note 20: Administered Reconciliation Table 151<br />
Note 21: Appropriations 152<br />
Note 22: Special Accounts 154<br />
Note 23: Compensation and Debt Relief 155<br />
Note 24: Reporting <strong>of</strong> Outcomes 155<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 113
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
114<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 115
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
116<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 117
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
INCOME STATEMENT<br />
for the year ended 30 30 June June 2006 2006<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
INCOME<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
Notes $ $<br />
Revenue<br />
Revenues from Government 4A 136,857,749 128,609,610<br />
Goods and services 4B 553,122 508,229<br />
Interest 4C 916,971 723,663<br />
Other revenues 4D 1,963,251 1,602,810<br />
Total Revenue 140,291,093 131,444,312<br />
Gains<br />
Other gains 4E 1,185,073 110,350<br />
Total Gains 1,185,073 110,350<br />
TOTAL INCOME 141,476,166 131,554,662<br />
EXPENSES<br />
Employees 5A 74,838,192 69,710,535<br />
Suppliers 5B 56,918,004 52,288,187<br />
Depreciation and amortisation 5C 7,915,608 6,815,262<br />
Finance costs 5D 984,539 1,694,315<br />
Write-down and impairment <strong>of</strong> assets 5E 1,362,886 599,002<br />
Net loss from disposal <strong>of</strong> assets 5F 747,174 22,519<br />
TOTAL EXPENSES 142,766,403 131,129,820<br />
OPERATING RESULT (1,290,237) 424,842<br />
The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
118<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
BALANCE SHEET SHEET<br />
as at 30 June 2006<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
Notes $ $<br />
ASSETS<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Cash and cash equivalents 6A 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
Receivables 6B 20,945,474 14,047,679<br />
Accrued revenue 6C 426,271 537,786<br />
Total Financial Assets 25,231,056 18,347,119<br />
Non-Financial Assets<br />
Land and buildings 7A,C 10,436,052 8,689,969<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment 7B,C 7,235,427 6,992,110<br />
Intangibles 7D 3,286,073 5,003,406<br />
Inventories 7E 158,817 143,088<br />
Other non-financial assets 7F 3,292,767 12,026,709<br />
Total Non-Financial Assets 24,409,136 32,855,282<br />
TOTAL ASSETS 49,640,192 51,202,401<br />
LIABILITIES<br />
Payables<br />
Suppliers 8A 5,644,180 6,032,255<br />
Other payables 8B 888,961 1,228,180<br />
Total Payables 6,533,141 7,260,435<br />
Provisions<br />
Employee provisions 9A 21,739,005 20,748,771<br />
Other provisions 9B 2,314,853 2,837,132<br />
Total Provisions 24,053,858 23,585,903<br />
TOTAL LIABILITIES 30,586,999 30,846,338<br />
NET ASSETS 19,053,193 20,356,063<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
EQUITY<br />
Contributed equity 4,456,116 4,456,116<br />
Reserves 4,751,171 4,763,804<br />
Retained surpluses 9,845,906 11,136,143<br />
TOTAL EQUITY 19,053,193 20,356,063<br />
Current assets 28,682,640 30,516,916<br />
Non-current assets 20,957,552 20,685,485<br />
Current liabilities 25,288,978 26,218,846<br />
Non-current liabilities 5,298,021 4,627,492<br />
The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 119
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
STATEMENT OF OF CASH CASH FLOWS FLOWS<br />
for for the the year year ended ended 30 30 June June 2006 2006<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
Notes $ $<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
OPERATING ACTIVITIES<br />
Cash Received<br />
Goods and services 4,028,350 3,471,641<br />
Appropriations 122,568,357 116,897,000<br />
Interest 916,971 723,663<br />
Net GST received from ATO 5,080,454 4,696,078<br />
Total Cash Received 132,594,132 125,788,382<br />
Cash Used<br />
Employees 67,559,378 66,469,514<br />
Suppliers 55,097,868 56,257,618<br />
Total Cash Used 122,657,246 122,727,132<br />
Net Cash From or (Used By) Operating Activities 10 9,936,886 3,061,250<br />
INVESTING ACTIVITIES<br />
Cash Received<br />
Proceeds from sales <strong>of</strong> property, plant and equipment 39,079 12,817<br />
Total Cash Received 39,079 12,817<br />
Cash Used<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> property, plant and equipment 8,977,094 3,957,731<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> intangibles 901,214 839,838<br />
Total Cash Used 9,878,308 4,797,569<br />
Net Cash From or (Used By) Investing Activities (9,839,229) (4,784,752)<br />
Net Increase or (Decrease) in Cash Held 97,657 (1,723,502)<br />
Cash at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong>ing period 3,761,654 5,485,156<br />
Cash at the End <strong>of</strong> the Reporting Period 6A 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
120<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
FAMILY COURT COURT OF AUSTRALIA<br />
OF AUSTRALIA<br />
STATEMENT OF OF CHANGES CHANGES IN EQUITY IN EQUITY<br />
for the year ended 30 30 June June 2006 2006<br />
Item Accumulated Results Asset Revaluation<br />
Reserves<br />
Contributed Equity/<br />
Capital<br />
TOTAL EQUITY<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
Opening Balance 11,136,143 10,711,301 4,763,804 4,763,804 4,456,116 2,753,116 20,356,063 18,228,221<br />
Revaluation Adjustment n/a n/a (12,633) - n/a n/a (12,633) -<br />
Subtotal income and<br />
expenses recognised<br />
directly in equity (12,633) - (12,633) -<br />
Net Operating Result (1,290,237) 424,842 n/a n/a n/a n/a (1,290,237) 424,842<br />
Transactions with<br />
Owners<br />
Distributions to owners<br />
Contributions by owners<br />
Appropriations (equity<br />
injections) - - - - - 1,703,000 - 1,703,000<br />
Closing balance as at 30<br />
June 9,845,906 11,136,143 4,751,171 4,763,804 4,456,116 4,456,116 19,053,193 20,356,063<br />
Total equity attributable<br />
to the Commonwealth 9,845,906 11,136,143 4,751,171 4,763,804 4,456,116 4,456,116 19,053,193 20,356,063<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 121
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
SCHEDULE OF OF COMMITMENTS<br />
as at 30 June 2006<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
BY TYPE<br />
Other Commitments<br />
Operating leases 1 229,678,145 247,288,875<br />
Other commitments 2 3,843,588 6,759,089<br />
Total Other Commitments 233,521,733 254,047,964<br />
Commitments Receivable (21,229,248) (23,095,270)<br />
Net Commitments by Type 212,292,485 230,952,694<br />
BY MATURITY<br />
Operating Lease Commitments<br />
One year or less 27,807,799 31,840,588<br />
From one to five years 73,824,977 101,611,870<br />
Over five years 128,045,369 113,836,417<br />
Total Operating Lease Commitments 229,678,145 247,288,875<br />
Other Commitments<br />
One year or less 2,566,860 5,279,337<br />
From one to five years 1,276,728 1,479,752<br />
Over five years - -<br />
Total Other Commitments 3,843,588 6,759,089<br />
Commitments Receivable<br />
One year or less (2,761,332) (3,374,538)<br />
From one to five years (6,827,428) (9,371,966)<br />
Over five years (11,640,488) (10,348,766)<br />
Total Commitments Receivable (21,229,248) (23,095,270)<br />
Net Commitments by Maturity 212,292,485 230,952,694<br />
NB: Commitments are GST inclusive where relevant.<br />
1<br />
Operating leases are effectively non cancelable and comprise:<br />
Nature <strong>of</strong> lease<br />
General description <strong>of</strong> leasing arrangement<br />
Leases for <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation<br />
A large proportion <strong>of</strong> these commitments are for special purpose court<br />
buildings owned by the Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
The projected rentals to be paid for the special purpose court buildings<br />
have been reliably measured by the providers <strong>of</strong> the property<br />
management service and include annual increases and market rate<br />
review where applicable.<br />
The amounts disclosed for non-special purpose buildings have been<br />
disclosed according to the details specified in commercial lease<br />
agreements and include annual increases and market rate reviews where<br />
applicable.<br />
<strong>Court</strong> motor vehicle leases<br />
No contingent rentals exist and there are no renewal or purchase<br />
options available to the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Leases for photocopiers and faxes No contingent rentals exist and there are no renewal or purchase<br />
options available to the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
2<br />
Other Commitments relate to payments in relation to the maintenance and ongoing costs associated with the <strong>Court</strong>'s<br />
buildings.<br />
The above schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
122<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
SCHEDULE OF OF CONTINGENCIES<br />
as at 30 June 2006<br />
Contingent Liabilities<br />
Claims for<br />
damages/costs<br />
Total<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
$ $ $ $<br />
Balance from previous period - 270,000 - 270,000<br />
Obligations expired - 270,000 - 270,000<br />
Total Contingent Liabilities - - - -<br />
NB: Contingencies are GST inclusive where relevant.<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> each class <strong>of</strong> contingent liabilities and assets, including those not included above because they cannot be<br />
quantified or considered remote, are disclosed in Note 11: Contingent Liabilities and Assets.<br />
The above schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 123
FAMILY COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA<br />
SCHEDULE OF OF ADMINISTERED ITEMS ITEMS<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Income Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
for the year ended 30 June 2006<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
Notes $ $<br />
Non-taxation Revenue<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees 16 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Total Revenues Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
for the year ended 30 June 2006<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees refunded 17 21,418 27,924<br />
Total Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 21,418 27,924<br />
Assets Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
as at 30 June 2006<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Cash and cash equivalents 18 34,814 52,643<br />
Total Assets Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 34,814 52,643<br />
Liabilities Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
as at 30 June 2006<br />
Payables<br />
Supplier payables 19 - 477<br />
Other payables 19 1,232 -<br />
Total Liabilities Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 1,232 477<br />
Current assets 34,814 52,643<br />
Non-current assets - -<br />
Current liabilities 1,232 477<br />
Non-current liabilities - -<br />
This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
124<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
FAMILY COURT COURT OF OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA<br />
SCHEDULE OF OF ADMINISTERED ITEMS ITEMS (continued) (continued)<br />
Administered Cash Flows<br />
for the year ended 30 June 2006<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
OPERATING ACTIVITIES<br />
Cash Received<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees 2,346,757 2,327,604<br />
Total Cash Received 2,346,757 2,327,604<br />
Cash Used<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees refunded 21,418 27,618<br />
Total Cash Used 21,418 27,618<br />
Net Cash From or (Used By) Operating Activities 2,325,339 2,299,986<br />
Net Increase or (Decrease) in Cash Held 2,325,339 2,299,986<br />
Cash at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the <strong>report</strong>ing period 52,643 8,785<br />
Cash from the Official Public Account 27,954 50,820<br />
Cash to the Official Public Account (2,371,122) (2,306,948)<br />
Cash at the End <strong>of</strong> the Reporting Period 18 34,814 52,643<br />
This schedule should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 125
Notes to to and and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Financial Statements Statements<br />
Note 1:<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> Significant Accounting Policies<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
1.1 Objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
The objective <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia ('the <strong>Court</strong>') is to resolve or determine disputes arising from family<br />
separation. The <strong>Court</strong> has the power under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 to grant divorces. In addition the <strong>Court</strong> makes<br />
orders relating to:<br />
• arrangements for children;<br />
• the distribution <strong>of</strong> property <strong>of</strong> the parties;<br />
• spousal maintenance;<br />
• child maintenance and child support reviews; and<br />
• the protection <strong>of</strong> a party.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has one outcome (Outcome 1):<br />
Serving the interest <strong>of</strong> the Australian Community by ensuring families and children in need can access<br />
effective high quality services.<br />
Within <strong>this</strong> Outcome, the <strong>Court</strong> has identified two key output groups, Resolution (Output Group 1.1) and<br />
Determination (Output Group 1.2). Within these the <strong>Court</strong> has a number <strong>of</strong> individual outputs as follows:<br />
Resolution (1.1)<br />
• Mediated agreements (Output 1.1.1)<br />
• Consent Orders (Output 1.1.2)<br />
Determination (1.2)<br />
• Divorces (Output 1.2.1)<br />
• Interim Orders (Output 1.2.2)<br />
• Final Orders (Output 1.2.3)<br />
• Appeals (Output 1.2.4)<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> activities contributing toward these outputs are classified as either Departmental or Administered.<br />
Departmental activities involve the use <strong>of</strong> assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses controlled or incurred by the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> in its own right. Administered activities involve the management or oversight by the <strong>Court</strong> on behalf <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Government <strong>of</strong> items controlled or incurred by the Government.<br />
The continued existence <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> in its present form, and with its present programs, is dependent on Government<br />
policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the <strong>Court</strong>'s administration and programs.<br />
1.2 Basis <strong>of</strong> Preparation <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
The financial statements are required by section 49 <strong>of</strong> the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and<br />
are a general purpose financial <strong>report</strong>.<br />
The statements have been prepared in accordance with:<br />
• Finance Minister's Orders (or FMOs, being the Financial Management and Accountability Orders<br />
(Financial Statements for <strong>report</strong>ing periods ending on or after 01 July 2005));<br />
• Australian Accounting Standards issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board that apply for the<br />
<strong>report</strong>ing period; and<br />
• Interpretations issued by the AASB and UIG that apply for the <strong>report</strong>ing period.<br />
This is the first financial <strong>report</strong> to be prepared under Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting<br />
Standards (AEIFRS). The impacts <strong>of</strong> adopting AEIFRS are disclosed in Note 2.<br />
-12-<br />
126<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
The Income Statement and Balance Sheet have been prepared on an accrual basis and are in accordance with<br />
historical cost convention, except for certain assets, which, as noted, are at fair value or amortised cost. Except<br />
where stated, no allowance is made for the effect <strong>of</strong> changing prices on the results or the financial position.<br />
The financial <strong>report</strong> is presented in Australian dollars and values are rounded to the nearest dollar.<br />
Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an accounting standard, assets and liabilities are recognised in<br />
the Balance Sheet when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow and the amounts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
assets or liabilities can be reliably measured. However, assets and liabilities arising under agreements equally<br />
proportionately unperformed are not recognised unless required by an Australian Accounting Standard. Liabilities<br />
and assets which are unrecognised are <strong>report</strong>ed in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Commitments and the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Contingencies<br />
(other than unquantifiable or remote contingencies, which are <strong>report</strong>ed at Note 11).<br />
Unless alternative treatment is specifically required by an Australian Accounting Standard, revenues and expenses<br />
are recognised in the Income Statement when and only when the flow or consumption or loss <strong>of</strong> economic benefits<br />
has occurred and can be reliably measured.<br />
Administered revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities and cash flows <strong>report</strong>ed in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Administered<br />
Items and related notes are accounted for on the same basis and using the same policies as for Departmental items,<br />
except where otherwise stated at Note 1.21.<br />
1.3 Significant Accounting Judgement and Estimates<br />
In the process <strong>of</strong> applying the accounting policies listed in <strong>this</strong> note, the <strong>Court</strong> has made the following judgment that<br />
has the most significant impact on the amounts recorded in the financial statements:<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
• The fair value <strong>of</strong> land and buildings, infrastructure, plant and equipment has been taken to be the<br />
written down replacement cost as determined by an independent valuer. In some instances, the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>'s buildings are purpose built and may in fact realise more or less in the market.<br />
No accounting assumptions or estimates have been identified that have a significant risk <strong>of</strong> causing a material<br />
adjustment to carrying amounts <strong>of</strong> assets and liabilities within the next accounting period.<br />
1.4 Statement <strong>of</strong> Compliance<br />
The financial <strong>report</strong> complies with Australian Accounting Standards, which include Australian Equivalents to<br />
International Financial Reporting Standards (AEIFRS).<br />
Australian Accounting Standards require the <strong>Court</strong> to disclose Australian Accounting Standards that have not been<br />
applied, or standards that have been issued but are not yet effective.<br />
The AASB has issued amendments to existing standards, these amendments are denoted by year and then number, for<br />
example 2005-1 indicates amendment 1 issued in 2005.<br />
The table below illustrates standards and amendments that will become effective for the <strong>Court</strong> in the future. The<br />
nature <strong>of</strong> the impending change within the table, has been out <strong>of</strong> necessity abbreviated and users should consult the<br />
<strong>full</strong> version available on the AASB's website to identify the <strong>full</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> the change. The expected impact on the<br />
financial <strong>report</strong> <strong>of</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> these standards is based on the <strong>Court</strong>'s initial assessment at <strong>this</strong> date, but may change.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> intends to adopt all <strong>of</strong> standards upon the application date.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 127
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Title<br />
Standard<br />
affected<br />
Application<br />
date*<br />
Nature <strong>of</strong> impending change<br />
Impact expected on<br />
financial <strong>report</strong><br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
2005-1 AASB 139 1 Jan 2006 Amends hedging requirements for<br />
foreign currency risk <strong>of</strong> a highly<br />
probable intra-group transaction.<br />
2005-4 AASB 139, AASB<br />
132, AASB 1,<br />
AASB 1023 and<br />
AASB 1038<br />
2005-5 AASB 1 and<br />
AASB 139<br />
1 Jan 2006 Amends AASB 139, AASB 1023<br />
and AASB 1038 to restrict the<br />
option to fair value through pr<strong>of</strong>it or<br />
loss and makes consequential<br />
amendments to AASB 1 and AASB<br />
132<br />
1 Jan 2006 Amends AASB 1 to allow an entity<br />
to determine whether an<br />
arrangement is, or contains, a lease.<br />
Amends AASB 139 to scope out a<br />
contractual right to receive<br />
reimbursement (in accordance with<br />
AASB 137) in the form <strong>of</strong> cash.<br />
2005-6 AASB 3 1 Jan 2006 Amends the scope to exclude<br />
business combinations involving<br />
entities or businesses under<br />
common control<br />
2005-9 AASB 4,<br />
AASB 1023,<br />
AASB 139 and<br />
AASB 132<br />
2005-10 AASB 132,<br />
AASB 101,<br />
AASB 114,<br />
AASB 117,<br />
AASB 133,<br />
AASB 139,<br />
AASB 1,<br />
AASB 4,<br />
AASB 1023 and<br />
1 Jan 2006 Amended standards in regards to<br />
financial guarantee contracts.<br />
1 Jan 2007 Amended requirements subsequent<br />
to the issuing <strong>of</strong> AASB 7.<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
AASB 1038<br />
2006-1 AASB 121 31 Dec 2006 Changes in requirements for net<br />
investments in foreign subsidiaries<br />
depending on denominated currency<br />
AASB<br />
7<br />
Financial<br />
Instruments:<br />
Disclosures<br />
1 Jan 2007 Revise the disclosure requirements<br />
for financial instruments from<br />
AASB 132 requirements.<br />
* Application date is for annual <strong>report</strong>ing periods beginning on or after the date shown<br />
No expected impact<br />
No expected impact<br />
128<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to to and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
1.5 Revenue<br />
Revenues from Government<br />
Amounts appropriated for Departmental outputs appropriations for the year (adjusted for any formal additions and<br />
reductions) are recognised as revenue, except for certain amounts which relate to activities that are reciprocal in<br />
nature, in which case revenue is recognised only when it has been earned.<br />
Appropriations receivable are recognised at their nominal amounts.<br />
Other Revenue<br />
Revenue from the sale <strong>of</strong> goods is recognised when:<br />
• The risks and rewards <strong>of</strong> ownership have been transferred to the buyer;<br />
• The seller retains no managerial involvement nor effective control over the goods;<br />
• The revenue and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and<br />
• It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the transaction will flow to the entity.<br />
Revenue from rendering <strong>of</strong> services is recognised by reference to the stage <strong>of</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> contracts at the <strong>report</strong>ing<br />
date. The revenue is recognised when:<br />
• The amount <strong>of</strong> revenue, stage <strong>of</strong> completion and transaction costs incurred can be reliably measured; and<br />
• The probable economic benefits with the transaction will flow to the entity.<br />
The stage <strong>of</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> contracts at the <strong>report</strong>ing date is determined by reference to the proportion that costs<br />
incurred to date bear to the estimated total costs <strong>of</strong> the transaction.<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Receivables for goods and services are recognised at the nominal amounts due less any provision for bad and<br />
doubtful debts. Collectability <strong>of</strong> debts is reviewed at balance date. Provisions are made when collectability <strong>of</strong> the debt<br />
is no longer probable.<br />
Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method as set out in AASB 139.<br />
1.6 Gains<br />
Resources Received Free <strong>of</strong> Charge<br />
Services received free <strong>of</strong> charge are recognised as gains when and only when a fair value can be reliably determined<br />
and the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use <strong>of</strong> those resources is recognised as an<br />
expense.<br />
Contributions <strong>of</strong> assets at no cost <strong>of</strong> acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised as gains at their fair<br />
value when the asset qualifies for recognition, unless received from another government agency as a consequence <strong>of</strong><br />
a restructuring <strong>of</strong> administrative arrangements (Refer to Note 1.7).<br />
Other Gains<br />
Gains from disposal <strong>of</strong> non-current assets is recognised when control <strong>of</strong> the asset has passed to the buyer.<br />
1.7 Transactions with the Government as Owner<br />
Equity injections<br />
Amounts appropriated which are designated as 'equity injections' for a year (less any formal reductions) are<br />
recognised directly in Contributed Equity in that year.<br />
Restructuring <strong>of</strong> Administrative Arrangements<br />
Net assets received from or relinquished to another Commonwealth agency or authority under a restructuring <strong>of</strong><br />
administrative arrangements are adjusted at their book value directly against contributed equity.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 129
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Other distributions to owners<br />
The FMOs require that distributions to owners be debited to contributed equity unless in the nature <strong>of</strong> a dividend.<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
1.8 Employee Benefits<br />
As required by the Finance Minister’s Orders, the <strong>Court</strong> has early adopted AASB 119 Employee Benefits as issued in<br />
December 2004.<br />
Liabilities for services rendered by employees are recognised at the <strong>report</strong>ing date to the extent that they have not<br />
been settled.<br />
Liabilities for ‘short-term employee benefits’ (as defined in AASB 119) and termination benefits due within twelve<br />
months <strong>of</strong> balance date are measured at their nominal amounts.<br />
The nominal amount is calculated with regard to the rates expected to be paid on settlement <strong>of</strong> the liability.<br />
All other employee benefit liabilities are measured as the present value <strong>of</strong> the estimated future cash outflows to be<br />
made in respect <strong>of</strong> services provided by employees up to the <strong>report</strong>ing date.<br />
Leave<br />
The liability for employee benefits includes provision for annual leave and long service leave. No provision has been<br />
made for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Court</strong> is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.<br />
The leave liabilities are calculated on the basis <strong>of</strong> employees' remuneration, including the <strong>Court</strong>'s employer<br />
superannuation contribution rates to the extent that the leave is likely to be taken during service rather than paid out<br />
on termination.<br />
The liability for long service leave has been determined by reference to the work <strong>of</strong> an actuary as at 30 June 2004.<br />
The estimate <strong>of</strong> the present value <strong>of</strong> the liability takes into account attrition rates and pay increases through<br />
promotion and inflation.<br />
Separation and redundancy<br />
Provision is made for separation and redundancy benefit payments. The <strong>Court</strong> has developed a detailed formal plan<br />
for the terminations and has informed those employees affected that it will carry out the terminations.<br />
Superannuation<br />
Staff <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> are members <strong>of</strong> the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), the Public Sector<br />
Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the PSS accumulation plan (PSSap).<br />
The CSS and PSS are defined benefit schemes for the Commonwealth. The PSSap is a defined contribution scheme.<br />
The liability for defined benefits is recognised in the financial statements <strong>of</strong> the Australian Government and is settled<br />
by the Australian Government in due course.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> makes employer contributions to the Australian Government at rates determined by an actuary to be<br />
sufficient to meet the cost to the Government <strong>of</strong> the superannuation entitlements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s employees.<br />
From 1 July 2005, new employees are eligible to join the PSSap scheme.<br />
The liability for superannuation recognised as at 30 June represents outstanding contributions for the final fortnight<br />
<strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
130<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to Notes and forming to and forming part <strong>of</strong> part the Financial <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements Statements<br />
1.9 Leases<br />
A distinction is made between finance leases and operating leases. Finance leases effectively transfer from the lessor<br />
to the lessee substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership <strong>of</strong> leased non-current assets. An operating<br />
lease is a lease that is not a finance lease. In operating leases, the lessor effectively retains substantially all such risks<br />
and benefits.<br />
Where a non-current asset is acquired by means <strong>of</strong> a finance lease, the asset is capitalised at either the fair value <strong>of</strong><br />
the lease property or, if lower, the present value <strong>of</strong> minimum lease payments at the inception <strong>of</strong> the contract and a<br />
liability recognised at the same time and for the same amount.<br />
The discount rate used is the interest rate implicit in the lease. Leased assets are amortised over the period <strong>of</strong> the<br />
lease. Lease payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense.<br />
Operating lease payments are expensed on a straight line basis which is representative <strong>of</strong> the pattern <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
derived from the leased assets.<br />
1.10 Cash<br />
Cash means notes and coins held and any deposits held at call with a bank or financial institution. Cash is recognised<br />
at its nominal amount.<br />
1.11 Financial Risk Management<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>’s activities expose it to normal commercial financial risk. As a result <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s business,<br />
internal and Australian Government policies dealing with the management <strong>of</strong> financial risk, the <strong>Court</strong>’s exposure to<br />
market, credit, liquidity, cash flow and fair value interest rate risk is considered to be low.<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
1.12 Derecognition <strong>of</strong> Financial Assets and Liabilities<br />
As prescribed in the Finance Minister’s Orders, the <strong>Court</strong> has applied the option available under AASB 1 <strong>of</strong> adopting<br />
AASB 132 and 139 from 1 July 2005 rather than 1 July 2004.<br />
Financial assets are derecognised when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial assets expire or the<br />
asset is transferred to another entity. In the case <strong>of</strong> a transfer to another entity, it is necessary that the risks and<br />
rewards <strong>of</strong> ownership are also transferred.<br />
Financial liabilities are derecognised when the obligation under the contract is discharged or cancelled or expires.<br />
For the comparative year, financial assets were derecognised when the contractual right to receive cash no longer<br />
existed. Financial liabilities were derecognised when the contractual obligation to pay cash no longer existed.<br />
1.13 Impairment <strong>of</strong> Financial Assets<br />
As prescribed in the Finance Minister’s Orders, the <strong>Court</strong> has applied the option available under AASB 1 <strong>of</strong> adopting<br />
AASB 132 and 139 from 1 July 2005 rather than 1 July 2004.<br />
Financial assets are assessed for impairment at each balance date.<br />
Financial Assets held at Cost<br />
If there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred on an unquoted equity instrument that is not<br />
carried at fair value because it cannot be reliably measured, or a derivative asset that is linked to and must be settled<br />
by delivery <strong>of</strong> such an unquoted equity instrument, the amount <strong>of</strong> the impairment loss is the difference between the<br />
carrying amount <strong>of</strong> the asset and the present value <strong>of</strong> the estimated future cash flows discounted at the current market<br />
rate for similar assets.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 131
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Comparative Year<br />
The above policy was not applied for the comparative year. For receivables, amounts were recognised and carried at<br />
original invoice amount less a provision for doubtful debts based on an estimate made when collection <strong>of</strong> the <strong>full</strong><br />
amount was no longer probable. Bad debts were written <strong>of</strong>f as incurred.<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Other financial assets carried at cost which were not held to generate net cash inflows, were assessed for indicators <strong>of</strong><br />
impairment. Where such indicators were found to exist, the recoverable amount <strong>of</strong> the assets was estimated and<br />
compared to the assets carrying amount and, if less, reduced to the carrying amount. The reduction was shown as an<br />
impairment loss.<br />
1.14 Trade Creditors<br />
Trade creditors and accruals are recognised at their nominal amounts, being the amounts at which the liabilities will<br />
be settled. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have been received (and irrespective <strong>of</strong><br />
having been invoiced).<br />
1.15 Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets<br />
Contingent Liabilities and Assets are not recognised in the Balance Sheet but are discussed in the relevant schedules<br />
and notes. They may arise from uncertainty as to the existence <strong>of</strong> a liability or asset, or represent an existing liability<br />
or asset in respect <strong>of</strong> which settlement is not probable or the amount cannot be reliably measured. Remote<br />
contingencies are part <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> disclosure. Where settlement becomes probable, a liability or asset is recognised. A<br />
liability or asset is recognised when its existence is confirmed by a future event, settlement becomes probable<br />
(virtually certain for assets) or reliable measurement becomes possible.<br />
1.16 Acquisition <strong>of</strong> Assets<br />
Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost <strong>of</strong> acquisition includes the fair value <strong>of</strong><br />
assets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken. Financial assets are initially measured at their fair value plus<br />
transaction costs where appropriate.<br />
Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised as assets and revenues at their fair<br />
value at the date <strong>of</strong> acquisition, unless acquired as a consequence <strong>of</strong> restructuring <strong>of</strong> administrative arrangements. In<br />
the latter case, assets are initially recognised as contributions by owners at the amounts at which they were<br />
recognised in the transferor agency’s accounts immediately prior to the restructuring.<br />
1.17 Land and Buildings, Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment<br />
Asset Recognition Threshold<br />
Purchases <strong>of</strong> land and buildings, infrastructure, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the Balance<br />
Sheet, except for purchases costing less than $2,000, which are expensed in the year <strong>of</strong> acquisition (other than where<br />
they form part <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> similar items which are significant in total).<br />
The initial cost <strong>of</strong> an asset includes an estimate <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site<br />
on which it is located. This is particularly relevant to ‘makegood’ provisions in property leases taken up by the <strong>Court</strong><br />
where there exists an obligation to restore the property to its original condition. These costs are included in the value<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s leasehold improvements with a corresponding provision for the ‘makegood’ taken up.<br />
Revaluations<br />
Basis<br />
Land and buildings, infrastructure, plant and equipment are carried at valuation, being revalued with sufficient<br />
frequency such that the carrying amount <strong>of</strong> each asset class is not materially different, at <strong>report</strong>ing date, from its fair<br />
value.<br />
132<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Fair values for each class <strong>of</strong> asset are determined as shown below.<br />
Asset class<br />
Land and buildings - leasehold improvements<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment<br />
Fair value measured at:<br />
Depreciated replacement cost<br />
Depreciated replacement cost<br />
Revaluation adjustments are made on a class basis. Any revaluation increment is credited to equity under the<br />
heading <strong>of</strong> asset revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a previous revaluation decrement <strong>of</strong> the same<br />
asset class that was previously recognised through pr<strong>of</strong>it and loss. Revaluation decrements for a class <strong>of</strong> assets are<br />
recognised directly through pr<strong>of</strong>it and loss except to the extent that they reverse a previous revaluation increment for<br />
that class.<br />
Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amount <strong>of</strong> the asset<br />
and the asset restated to the revalued amount.<br />
Frequency<br />
Following initial recognition at cost, valuations are conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure that the carrying<br />
amounts <strong>of</strong> assets do not materially differ from the assets’ fair values as at the <strong>report</strong>ing date. The regularity <strong>of</strong><br />
independent valuations depends upon the volatility <strong>of</strong> movements in market values for the relevant assets.<br />
Valuations are conducted by an independent qualified valuer.<br />
Asset class Last revaluation: Next revaluation due:<br />
Land and buildings - leasehold improvements 30 June 2006 Values reviewed annually<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment 30 June 2006 Values reviewed annually<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Depreciation/Amortisation<br />
Depreciable land and buildings, infrastructure, plant and equipment assets are written-<strong>of</strong>f to their estimated residual<br />
values over their estimated useful lives to the <strong>Court</strong> using, in all cases, the straight-line method <strong>of</strong> depreciation. Land<br />
and buildings - leasehold improvements are amortised on a straight-line basis over the lesser <strong>of</strong> the estimated useful<br />
life <strong>of</strong> the improvements or the unexpired period <strong>of</strong> the lease.<br />
Depreciation rates (useful lives), residual values and methods are reviewed at each <strong>report</strong>ing date and necessary<br />
adjustments are recognised in the current, or current and future <strong>report</strong>ing periods, as appropriate.<br />
Depreciation rates applying to each class <strong>of</strong> depreciable asset are based on the following useful lives:<br />
2006 2005<br />
Land and Buildings - leasehold improvements Lesser <strong>of</strong> 10 years or lease term Lesser <strong>of</strong> 10 years or lease term<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment 1 to 10 years 1 to 12 years<br />
The aggregate amount <strong>of</strong> depreciation allocated for each class <strong>of</strong> asset during the <strong>report</strong>ing period is disclosed in<br />
Note 5C.<br />
Impairment<br />
All assets were assessed for impairment at 30 June 2006. Where indications <strong>of</strong> impairment exist, the asset’s<br />
recoverable amount is estimated and an impairment adjustment made if the asset’s recoverable amount is less than its<br />
carrying amount.<br />
The recoverable amount <strong>of</strong> an asset is the higher <strong>of</strong> its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Value in use is<br />
the present value <strong>of</strong> the future cash flows expected to be derived from the asset. Where the future economic benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
an asset is not primarily dependent on the asset’s ability to generate future cash flows, and the asset would be<br />
replaced if the <strong>Court</strong> were deprived <strong>of</strong> the asset, its value in use is taken to be its depreciated replacement cost.<br />
No indicators <strong>of</strong> impairment were found for assets at fair value.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 133
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
1.18 Intangibles - Computer S<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>'s intangibles comprise internally developed s<strong>of</strong>tware for internal use and externally developed purchased<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware. These assets are carried at cost.<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Computer s<strong>of</strong>tware is amortised on a straight-line basis over its anticipated useful life. The useful lives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>'s<br />
computer s<strong>of</strong>tware is 5 years (2005: 7 to 10 years).<br />
All computer s<strong>of</strong>tware assets were assessed for indications <strong>of</strong> impairment as at 30 June 2006. No s<strong>of</strong>tware assets<br />
were identified as impaired.<br />
1.19 Inventories<br />
Inventories held for resale are valued at the lower <strong>of</strong> cost and net realisable value.<br />
Inventories held for distribution are measured at the lower <strong>of</strong> cost and current replacement cost.<br />
Inventories acquired at no cost or nominal consideration are measured at current replacement cost at the date <strong>of</strong><br />
acquisition.<br />
Inventory impairments arising from changes in legislation are disclosed in Note 5E.<br />
1.20 Taxation<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> is exempt from all forms <strong>of</strong> taxation except Fringe Benefits Tax and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).<br />
Revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net <strong>of</strong> GST:<br />
• except where the amount <strong>of</strong> GST incurred is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office; and<br />
• except for receivables and payables.<br />
1.21 Reporting <strong>of</strong> Administered Activities<br />
Administered revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash flows are disclosed in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Administered<br />
Items and related Notes.<br />
Except where otherwise stated below, Administered items are accounted for on the same basis and using the same<br />
policies as for Departmental items, including the application <strong>of</strong> Australian Accounting Standards.<br />
Administered Cash Transfers to and from Official Public Account<br />
Revenue collected by the <strong>Court</strong> for use by the Government rather than the <strong>Court</strong> is Administered Revenue.<br />
Collections are transferred to the Official Public Account (OPA) maintained by the Department <strong>of</strong> Finance and<br />
Administration. Conversely, cash is drawn from the OPA to make payments under Parliamentary appropriation on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> Government. These transfers to and from the OPA are adjustments to the Administered cash held by the<br />
<strong>Court</strong> on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Government and <strong>report</strong>ed as such in the Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows in the Schedule <strong>of</strong><br />
Administered Items and in the Administered Reconciliation Table in Note 20. Thus the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Administered<br />
Items largely reflects the Government's transactions, through the <strong>Court</strong>, with parties outside the Government.<br />
Revenue<br />
All administered revenues are revenues relating to the core operating activities performed by the <strong>Court</strong> on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />
the Australian Government.<br />
Fees are charged for access to the <strong>Court</strong>'s services. Administered fee revenue is recognised when an application for<br />
the service is lodged with the <strong>Court</strong>. It is recognised at its nominal amount.<br />
134<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
Note 2:<br />
The Impact <strong>of</strong> the Transition to AEIFRS from Previous AGAAP<br />
2005 2004<br />
$ $<br />
Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> total equity as presented under previous AGAAP to that under<br />
AEIFRS<br />
Total equity under previous AGAAP 19,614,517 17,872,673<br />
Adjustments to retained earnings:<br />
Provision for makegood discounting 1 341,901 325,211<br />
Assets - carrying value 1 399,645 347,891<br />
Supplier payables - lease incentive 2 - (352,840)<br />
Adjustments to other reserves:<br />
Asset revaluation reserve 3 - 35,286<br />
Total Equity translated to AEIFRS 20,356,063 18,228,221<br />
Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it or loss as presented under previous AGAAP to AEIFRS<br />
Prior year pr<strong>of</strong>it as previously <strong>report</strong>ed 3,558<br />
Adjustments:<br />
Depreciation and amortisation 1 (129,466)<br />
Suppliers 1 954,030<br />
Finance expense on makegood provision 1 (756,120)<br />
Supplier payables - lease incentive 2 352,840<br />
Prior year pr<strong>of</strong>it translated to AEIFRS 424,842<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
The cash flow statement presented under previous Australian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (AGAAP) is<br />
equivalent to that prepared under AEIFRS.<br />
1<br />
When assessing accommodation leases for the preparation <strong>of</strong> the opening balance sheet, no new obligations under<br />
the leases for makegood were identified, however, the <strong>Court</strong> does have a material obligation to makegood on its<br />
leasehold fit out.<br />
The accounting treatment under AGAAP and the AEIFRS requirements vary significantly. Previously the obligation<br />
had been recognised as a credit to the <strong>Court</strong>'s provisions at the estimated nominal value and as a debit to the net<br />
surplus/deficit in the year that the obligation first arose. Subsequent adjustments to the nominal provision estimate<br />
were recognised as a debit/credit to the net surplus/deficit in the year in which the adjustment was made.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>'s makegood obligations under AEIFRS will be <strong>report</strong>ed consistent with the AASB standards, including<br />
AASB1 and UIG pronouncements regarding Changes in Existing Decommissioning, Restoration and Similar<br />
Liabilities (UIG1), using the revaluation model.<br />
Under AEIFRS the <strong>Court</strong> will <strong>report</strong> its obligation as a deferred cash flow asset and an associated liability. The <strong>Court</strong><br />
has applied the treatment recommended in the 2004-05 FMOs that the deferred cash flow asset be valued separately<br />
from the underlying leasehold fit out asset.<br />
2<br />
A distinction is made between finance leases, which effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all<br />
the risks and benefits incidental to ownership <strong>of</strong> leased non-current assets, and operating leases under which the lessor<br />
effectively retains substantially all such risks and benefits.<br />
3<br />
The 2005-06 Finance Minister's Orders continue to require property plant and equipment assets to be valued at fair<br />
value, with valuations conducted in accordance with Note 1.17<br />
The AASB Equivalent on Intangibles does not permit intangibles to be measured at valuation unless there is an active<br />
market for the intangible. The <strong>Court</strong>'s internally-developed s<strong>of</strong>tware is specific to the needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and is not<br />
traded. The <strong>Court</strong> currently recognises internally-developed s<strong>of</strong>tware assets on the cost basis, therefore no change has<br />
occurred.<br />
-21-<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 135
Notes Notes to and to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 3:<br />
Events after the Balance Sheet Date<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has no adjusting or non-adjusting events after the balance sheet date.<br />
136<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 4:<br />
Income<br />
Revenues<br />
Note 4A: Revenues from Government<br />
Appropriations for outputs 129,125,796 121,703,238<br />
Liabilities assumed by related entities 7,731,953 6,906,372<br />
Total Revenues from Government 136,857,749 128,609,610<br />
Note 4B: Goods and Services<br />
Goods - external entities 12,468 47,707<br />
Services - external entities 540,654 460,522<br />
Total Sales <strong>of</strong> Goods and Services 553,122 508,229<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> goods to:<br />
External entities 12,468 47,707<br />
Total Sales <strong>of</strong> Goods 12,468 47,707<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services to:<br />
External entities 540,654 460,522<br />
Total Rendering <strong>of</strong> Services 540,654 460,522<br />
Note 4C: Interest<br />
Interest on deposits 7,392 6,061<br />
Discount received 909,579 717,602<br />
Total Interest 916,971 723,663<br />
Note 4D: Other Revenues<br />
Other revenue - external entities 16,208 88,024<br />
Other revenue - related entities 1,947,043 1,514,786<br />
Total Other Revenues 1,963,251 1,602,810<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Gains<br />
Note 4E: Other Gains<br />
Resources free <strong>of</strong> charge 70,000 110,350<br />
Makegood forgiven 812,044 -<br />
Assets first found 303,029 -<br />
Total Other Gains 1,185,073 110,350<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 137
Notes to to and and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 5:<br />
Operating Expenses<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 5A: Employee Expenses<br />
Wages and salaries 51,898,963 49,838,676<br />
Superannuation 14,253,206 13,019,954<br />
Leave and other entitlements 6,212,738 5,629,856<br />
Separation and redundancies 1,432,860 238,757<br />
Other employee expenses 1,040,425 983,292<br />
Total Employee Expenses 74,838,192 69,710,535<br />
Note 5B: Suppliers<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - related entities 452,672 612,902<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - external entities 28,481,368 25,785,086<br />
Operating lease rentals* 27,264,249 24,842,891<br />
Workers' compensation premiums 719,715 1,047,308<br />
Total Suppliers 56,918,004 52,288,187<br />
* These comprise minimum lease payments only.<br />
Note 5C: Depreciation and Amortisation<br />
Depreciation<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment 2,141,455 1,504,173<br />
Total Depreciation 2,141,455 1,504,173<br />
Amortisation<br />
Intangibles - computer s<strong>of</strong>tware 2,618,546 2,492,421<br />
Leasehold improvements 3,155,607 2,818,668<br />
Total Amortisation 5,774,153 5,311,089<br />
Total Depreciation and Amortisation 7,915,608 6,815,262<br />
Note 5D: Finance costs<br />
Unwinding <strong>of</strong> discount - employees 797,345 938,194<br />
Unwinding <strong>of</strong> discount - makegood 187,194 756,121<br />
Total finance costs expense 984,539 1,694,315<br />
Note 5E: Write Down and Impairment <strong>of</strong> Assets<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Bad and doubtful debts expense 7,201 6,303<br />
Other - 439<br />
Non-financial Assets<br />
Infrastructure, plant & equipment - revaluation decrement 1,194,777 -<br />
Inventories - impairment 160,908 592,260<br />
Total Write-down <strong>of</strong> Assets 1,362,886 599,002<br />
138<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 5F: Net Loss from Disposal <strong>of</strong> Assets<br />
Land and buildings:<br />
Write-<strong>of</strong>fs - 258<br />
Net loss from Disposal <strong>of</strong> Land and Buildings - 258<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment:<br />
Proceeds from disposal (39,079) (12,817)<br />
Net book value <strong>of</strong> assets disposed 99,189 28,905<br />
Write-<strong>of</strong>fs 687,064 6,173<br />
Net Loss from Disposal <strong>of</strong> Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment 747,174 22,261<br />
Total proceeds from disposals (39,079) (12,817)<br />
Total value <strong>of</strong> assets disposed 786,253 35,336<br />
Total Net Loss from Disposal <strong>of</strong> Assets 747,174 22,519<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 139
Notes Notes to and to and forming forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 6:<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 6A: Cash and Cash Equivalents<br />
Cash at bank 3,841,116 3,744,450<br />
Cash on hand 18,195 17,204<br />
Total Cash and Cash Equivalents 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
All cash recognised is a current asset.<br />
Note 6B: Receivables<br />
Goods and services 160,991 98,903<br />
Less: Allowance for doubtful debts (2,725) (1,527)<br />
158,266 97,376<br />
GST receivable from the Australian Taxation Office 932,139 663,877<br />
Appropriations receivable<br />
- for existing outputs 19,855,069 13,286,426<br />
Total Receivables (net) 20,945,474 14,047,679<br />
All receivables are current assets.<br />
Appropriations receivable undrawn are appropriations controlled by the <strong>Court</strong> but held in the Official Public Account<br />
under the Government’s just-in-time drawdown arrangements. The increase in the <strong>Court</strong>'s appropriations receivable is<br />
detailed in Note 7F.<br />
Receivables (gross) are aged as follows:<br />
Current 20,901,274 13,981,267<br />
Overdue by:<br />
Less than 30 days 15,364 62,315<br />
30 to 60 days 14,923 68<br />
60 to 90 days 1,553 1,095<br />
More than 90 days 15,085 4,461<br />
46,925 67,939<br />
Total Receivables (Gross) 20,948,199 14,049,206<br />
The allowance for doubtful debts is aged as follows:<br />
Current - 227<br />
Overdue by:<br />
More than 90 days 2,725 1,300<br />
Total Allowance for Doubtful Debts 2,725 1,527<br />
Note 6C: Accrued Revenue<br />
Goods and services 51,892 152,912<br />
Interest 708 -<br />
Other accrued revenue 373,671 384,874<br />
Total Accrued Revenue 426,271 537,786<br />
All accrued revenue recognised is a current asset.<br />
140<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 7:<br />
Non-Financial Assets<br />
Note 7A:<br />
Land and Buildings<br />
Leasehold Improvements<br />
- at fair value 11,605,083 25,933,488<br />
- Accumulated amortisation (1,233,058) (17,634,901)<br />
10,372,025 8,298,587<br />
Work In Progress<br />
Leasehold improvements - at cost 64,027 391,382<br />
Total Leasehold Improvements 10,436,052 8,689,969<br />
Note 7B: Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment<br />
Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment<br />
- at fair value 6,548,353 7,459,040<br />
- Accumulated depreciation (25,886) (1,464,970)<br />
6,522,467 5,994,070<br />
Work In Progress<br />
Infrastructure, plant and equipment - at cost 712,960 998,040<br />
Total Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment (Non-current) 7,235,427 6,992,110<br />
All formal revaluations are independent and are conducted in accordance with the revaluation policy stated in Note 1.17.<br />
In 2005-06, the formal revaluations were conducted by an independent valuer Preston Rowe Patterson Pty Ltd (PRP).<br />
A revaluation increment <strong>of</strong> $113,026 for leasehold improvements (2005: nil) and a decrement <strong>of</strong> $125,659 for plant and<br />
equipment were credited to the asset revaluation reserve by asset class and included in the equity section <strong>of</strong> the balance<br />
sheet; a decrement <strong>of</strong> $1,194,777 for plant and equipment was expended (2005: nil).<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 141
Notes Notes to to and and forming forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Financial Statements Statements<br />
Note 7C:<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Land and Building, Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment<br />
TABLE A - Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> the Opening and Closing Balances <strong>of</strong> Land and Buildings, Infrastructure,<br />
Plant and Equipment<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Item<br />
Land & IP&E TOTAL<br />
Buildings -<br />
Leasehold<br />
Improvements<br />
$ $ $<br />
As at 1 July 2005<br />
Gross book value 26,324,870 8,457,080 34,781,950<br />
Accumulated depreciation/amortisation (17,634,901) (1,464,970) (19,099,871)<br />
Opening net book value 8,689,969 6,992,110 15,682,079<br />
Additions:<br />
By purchase 5,100,485 4,179,640 9,280,125<br />
Revaluations and impairments through equity 113,026 (125,659) (12,633)<br />
Depreciation/amortisation expense (3,155,607) (2,141,455) (5,297,062)<br />
Revaluations and Impairments recognised in the operating result - (1,194,777) (1,194,777)<br />
Disposals:<br />
From disposal <strong>of</strong> operations (311,821) (474,432) (786,253)<br />
As at 30 June 2006<br />
Gross book value 11,669,110 7,261,313 18,930,423<br />
Accumulated depreciation/amortisation (1,233,058) (25,886) (1,258,944)<br />
Closing net book value 10,436,052 7,235,427 17,671,479<br />
TABLE B - Land and Buildings, Infrastructure, Plant, and Equipment under Construction<br />
Item<br />
Land & IP&E TOTAL<br />
Buildings -<br />
Leasehold<br />
Improvements<br />
$ $ $<br />
Carrying amount at 30 June 2006 64,027 712,960 776,987<br />
Carrying amount at 30 June 2005 391,382 998,040 1,389,422<br />
142<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 7D:<br />
Intangibles<br />
Computer s<strong>of</strong>tware:<br />
Internally developed - in progress (non-current) 328,145 148,619<br />
328,145 148,619<br />
Internally developed - in use (non-current) 10,413,399 10,099,333<br />
- Accumulated amortisation (8,095,430) (6,047,294)<br />
2,317,969 4,052,039<br />
Externally acquired - at cost (non-current) 3,465,073 3,057,451<br />
- Accumulated amortisation (2,825,114) (2,254,703)<br />
639,959 802,748<br />
Total Intangibles (Non-current) 3,286,073 5,003,406<br />
TABLE A - Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> the Opening and Closing Balances <strong>of</strong> Intangibles<br />
Item<br />
Computer<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
internally<br />
developed<br />
Computer<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
purchased<br />
Intangibles -<br />
Total<br />
$ $ $<br />
As at 1 July 2005<br />
Gross book value 10,247,952 3,057,451 13,305,403<br />
Accumulated depreciation/amortisation (6,047,294) (2,254,703) (8,301,997)<br />
Net book value 4,200,658 802,748 5,003,406<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Additions<br />
By purchase 642,211 259,003 901,214<br />
Depreciation/amortisation expense (2,048,136) (570,410) (2,618,546)<br />
As at 30 June 2006<br />
Gross book value 10,741,544 3,465,073 14,206,617<br />
Accumulated depreciation/amortisation (8,095,430) (2,825,114) (10,920,544)<br />
Net book value 2,646,114 639,959 3,286,073<br />
TABLE B - Intangibles under Construction<br />
Item<br />
Computer<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
internally<br />
developed<br />
Computer<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
purchased<br />
TOTAL<br />
$ $ $<br />
Carrying amount at 30 June 2006 328,145 - 328,145<br />
Carrying amount at 30 June 2005 148,619 - 148,619<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 143
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 7E: Inventories<br />
Inventories held for distribution 158,817 143,088<br />
Total Inventories 158,817 143,088<br />
All departmental inventories are current assets.<br />
Note 7F: Other Non-Financial Assets<br />
Prepayments 3,292,767 12,026,709<br />
Total Other Non-financial Assets 3,292,767 12,026,709<br />
All other non-financial assets are current assets.<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> prepayments at 30 June 2006 has significantly reduced from the prior year due to a change in<br />
arrangements between the <strong>Court</strong> and United Group Services (UGS), under a new contract signed for the management<br />
<strong>of</strong> Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s (CLC) premises. Previously the <strong>Court</strong> made biannual prepayments in advance for<br />
disbursements on the <strong>Court</strong>'s behalf. However, from 1 July 2006 the <strong>Court</strong> will adopt a just in time payment<br />
arrangement. The prepayment monies have been returned to the Official Public Account (OPA) and recognised as a<br />
receivable (Note 6B).<br />
144<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 8:<br />
Payables<br />
Note 8A: Supplier Payables<br />
Trade creditors 1,832,271 1,948,187<br />
Operating lease rentals 290,284 433,813<br />
Other 3,521,625 3,650,255<br />
Total Supplier Payables 5,644,180 6,032,255<br />
Supplier payables are represented by:<br />
Current 5,497,426 5,741,972<br />
Non-current 146,754 290,283<br />
Total Supplier Payables 5,644,180 6,032,255<br />
Settlement is usually made net 30 days.<br />
Note 8B: Other Payables<br />
Fringe Benefits Tax payable 313,741 306,552<br />
Prepayments received 573,408 921,628<br />
Other payables 1,812 -<br />
Total Other Payables 888,961 1,228,180<br />
All other payables are current liabilities.<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 145
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 9:<br />
Provisions<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 9A: Employee Provisions<br />
Salaries and wages 380,894 166,281<br />
Leave 19,926,666 20,433,147<br />
Superannuation 50,109 22,770<br />
Separations and redundancies 1,381,336 126,573<br />
Total Employee Provisions 21,739,005 20,748,771<br />
Employee provisions are represented by:<br />
Current 17,953,539 16,411,562<br />
Non-current 3,785,466 4,337,209<br />
21,739,005 20,748,771<br />
Amounts discounted according to AASB 119 are <strong>report</strong>ed as current or non-current in accordance with AASB 101.<br />
Where there is a legal right to payment within 12 months, the amount is <strong>report</strong>ed as current, even where payment is<br />
not expected to be made within 12 months.<br />
Note 9B: Other Provisions<br />
Makegood provisions 2,314,853 2,837,132<br />
Total Other Provisions 2,314,853 2,837,132<br />
Other provisions are represented by:<br />
Total current 949,052 1,123,780<br />
Total non-current 1,365,801 1,713,352<br />
Total Other Provisions 2,314,853 2,837,132<br />
Provision for<br />
Make good<br />
$<br />
Carrying amount at beginning <strong>of</strong> period 2,837,132<br />
Additional provisions made 138,935<br />
Debt forgiven (812,044)<br />
Debt paid (36,364)<br />
Unwinding <strong>of</strong> discounted amount arising from the passage <strong>of</strong> time 187,194<br />
Amount owing at end <strong>of</strong> period 2,314,853<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> currently has 15 agreements for the leasing <strong>of</strong> premises which have provisions requiring the <strong>Court</strong> to<br />
restore the premises to their original condition at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the lease. The <strong>Court</strong> has made a provision to<br />
reflect the present value <strong>of</strong> <strong>this</strong> obligation.<br />
146<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 10:<br />
Cash Flow Reconciliation<br />
Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> cash per Balance Sheet to Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows<br />
Cash at year end per Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
Balance Sheet items comprising above cash:<br />
'Financial Asset - Cash' 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
Reconciliation <strong>of</strong> operating result to net cash from operating activities:<br />
Operating result (1,290,314) 424,842<br />
Depreciation and amortisation 7,915,685 6,815,262<br />
Write down <strong>of</strong> non-current assets 1,194,777 -<br />
Loss on disposal <strong>of</strong> assets 747,174 22,519<br />
Inventories impairment 160,908 592,260<br />
Assets first found (303,029) -<br />
Change in operating assets and liabilities resulting from operating activities (net <strong>of</strong><br />
restructuring):<br />
(Increase) / decrease in net receivables (8,600,794) (6,659,050)<br />
(Increase) / decrease in net receivables due to equity transaction (non operating) 1,703,000 1,703,000<br />
(Increase) / decrease in inventories (176,638) 50,318<br />
(Increase) / decrease in accrued revenue 111,516 334,619<br />
(Increase) / decrease in prepayments to suppliers 8,733,943 (505,575)<br />
Increase / (decrease) in employee provisions 990,234 (1,798,183)<br />
Increase / (decrease) in other provisions <strong>of</strong>fset to Asset Revaluation Reserve - (181,222)<br />
Increase / (decrease) in supplier payables (388,078) 430,077<br />
Increase / (decrease) in other payables (339,219) 895,040<br />
Increase / (decrease) in other provisions (522,279) 937,343<br />
Net cash from or (used by) operating activities 9,936,886 3,061,250<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Note 11:<br />
Contingent Liabilities and Assets<br />
Quantifiable Contingencies<br />
The Schedule <strong>of</strong> Contingencies <strong>report</strong>s nil contingent liabilities in respect <strong>of</strong> claims for damages/costs (2005: nil).<br />
Unquantifiable Contingencies<br />
At 30 June 2006, the <strong>Court</strong> had a number <strong>of</strong> legal claims against it. The <strong>Court</strong> has denied liability and is defending<br />
the claims. It is not possible to estimate the amounts <strong>of</strong> any eventual payments that may be required in relation to<br />
these claims.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 147
Notes to to and and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Financial Statements Statements<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 12:<br />
Executive Remuneration<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> senior executives who received or were due to receive total<br />
remuneration <strong>of</strong> $130,000 or more:<br />
2006 2005<br />
$130 000 to $144 999 1 1<br />
$145 000 to $159 999 1 -<br />
$160 000 to $174 999 - 2<br />
$175 000 to $189 999 4 2<br />
$190 000 to $204 999 - 3<br />
$205 000 to $219 999 1 1<br />
$220 000 to $234 999 2 -<br />
$235 000 to $249 999 1 -<br />
$280 000 to $294 999 1 -<br />
$295 000 to $309 999 - 1<br />
Total 11 10<br />
The aggregate amount <strong>of</strong> total remuneration <strong>of</strong> executives shown above. $2,191,916 $1,926,174<br />
The aggregate amount <strong>of</strong> separation and redundancy/termination benefit payments<br />
during the year to executives shown above. $40,118 NIL<br />
Note 13:<br />
Remuneration <strong>of</strong> Auditors<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Financial statement audit services are provided free <strong>of</strong> charge to the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
The fair value <strong>of</strong> audit services provided was: 70,000 75,000<br />
70,000 75,000<br />
No other services are provided by the Auditor-General.<br />
Note 14: Average Staffing Levels<br />
2006 2005<br />
The average staffing levels for the <strong>Court</strong> during the year were: 710 700<br />
148<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to to and and forming forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Financial Statements Statements<br />
Note 15: Financial Instruments<br />
Note 15A: Interest Rate Risk<br />
Financial Instrument Notes Floating Interest<br />
Rate<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
Fixed Interest Rate Maturing In Non-Interest Bearing Total Weighted Average<br />
Effective Interest Rate<br />
1 Year or Less 1 to 5 Years > 5 Years<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Cash 6A - - - - - - - - 3,859,311 3,761,654 3,859,311 3,761,654 n/a n/a<br />
Accrued revenue 6C - - - - - - - - 426,271 537,786 426,271 537,786 n/a n/a<br />
Receivables for goods and<br />
services (gross) 6B - - - - - - - - 160,991 98,903 160,991 98,903 n/a n/a<br />
Total - - - - - - - - 4,446,573 4,398,343 4,446,573 4,398,343<br />
Total Assets 49,640,192 51,202,401<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
2006<br />
%<br />
2005<br />
%<br />
Financial Liabilities<br />
Trade creditors 8A - - - - - - - - 1,832,271 1,948,187 1,832,271 1,948,187 n/a n/a<br />
Total - - - - - - - - 1,832,271 1,948,187 1,832,271 1,948,187<br />
Total Liabilities 30,586,999 30,846,338<br />
-35-<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 149
Notes to and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Note 15B:<br />
Fair Values <strong>of</strong> Financial Assets and Liabilities<br />
2006 2005<br />
Total Aggregate Total Aggregate<br />
Carrying Fair Carrying Fair<br />
Amount Value Amount Value<br />
Notes $ $ $ $<br />
Departmental Financial Assets<br />
Cash 6A 3,859,311 3,859,311 3,761,654 3,761,654<br />
Accrued revenue 6C 426,271 426,271 537,786 537,786<br />
Receivables for goods and services<br />
(gross)<br />
6B<br />
160,991 160,991 98,903 98,903<br />
Total Financial Assets 4,446,573 4,446,573 4,398,343 4,398,343<br />
Financial Liabilities (Recognised)<br />
Trade creditors 8A 1,832,271 1,832,271 1,948,187 1,948,187<br />
Total Financial Liabilities (Recognised) 1,832,271 1,832,271 1,948,187 1,948,187<br />
Note 15C: Credit Risk Exposures<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>'s maximum exposures to credit risk at <strong>report</strong>ing date in relation to each class <strong>of</strong> recognised financial assets<br />
is the carrying amount <strong>of</strong> those assets as indicated in the Balance Sheet.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has no significant exposures to any concentrations <strong>of</strong> credit risk.<br />
All figures for credit risk referred to do not take into account the value <strong>of</strong> any collateral or other security.<br />
150<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
30 June 30 June<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Note 16:<br />
Income Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
Non-taxation Revenues<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Total Income Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Note 17:<br />
Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
Other Expenses<br />
Rendering <strong>of</strong> services - fees refunded 21,418 27,924<br />
Total Other Expenses 21,418 27,924<br />
Total Expenses Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 21,418 27,924<br />
Note 18:<br />
Financial Assets<br />
Assets Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
Cash and Cash Equivalents<br />
Cash on deposit 34,814 52,643<br />
Total Cash and Cash Equivalents 34,814 52,643<br />
Total Assets Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 34,814 52,643<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
Note 19:<br />
Liabilities Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
Supplier Payables<br />
Other creditors - 477<br />
Total Supplier Payables - 477<br />
All creditors are entities that are not part <strong>of</strong> the Australian Government.<br />
Settlement is usually made net 30 days.<br />
Other payables<br />
Funds requiring transfer 1,232 -<br />
Total Liabilities Administered on Behalf <strong>of</strong> Government 1,232 477<br />
Note 20:<br />
Administered Reconciliation Table<br />
Opening administered assets less administered liabilities as at 1 July 52,166 8,613<br />
Plus: Administered revenues 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Less: Administered expenses (21,418) (27,924)<br />
Administered transfers to/from Australian Government:<br />
Appropriation transfers from OPA 27,954 50,820<br />
Transfers to OPA (2,371,122) (2,306,947)<br />
Closing administered assets less administered liabilities as at 30 June 33,582 52,166<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 151
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Notes to to and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
Note 21: Appropriations<br />
Note 21A: Acquittal <strong>of</strong> Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations<br />
Particulars Administered Expenses Departmental Outputs Total<br />
Outcome 1<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
Year ended 30 June 2006 $ $ $ $ $ $<br />
Balance carried from previous year - - 15,806,369 12,273,623 15,806,369 12,273,623<br />
Reductions <strong>of</strong> appropriations (prior years) - - - - - -<br />
Adjusted balance carried for previous period - - 15,806,369 12,273,623 15,806,369 12,273,623<br />
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005 - 2006 - - 129,260,000 114,837,000 129,260,000 114,837,000<br />
Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2005 - 2006 - - 977,000 7,246,000 977,000 7,246,000<br />
Departmental Adjustments by the Finance Minister (Appropriation Acts) n/a n/a - - - -<br />
Advance to the Finance Minister - - - - - -<br />
Adjustment <strong>of</strong> appropriations on change <strong>of</strong> entity function (FMAA s32) - - - - - -<br />
Refunds credited (FMAA s30) - - - - - -<br />
Appropriation reduced by section 9 determinations (current year) - - 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 -<br />
Sub-total 2005 - 06 - - 129,137,000 122,083,000 129,137,000 122,083,000<br />
Appropriations to take account <strong>of</strong> recoverable GST (FMAA s30A) - - 6,375,250 5,933,962 6,375,250 5,933,962<br />
Annotations to 'net appropriations' (FMAA s31) - - 4,984,401 5,375,756 4,984,401 5,375,756<br />
Total Appropriations available for payments - - 156,303,020 145,666,341 156,303,020 145,666,341<br />
Cash payments made during the year (GST inclusive) - - 131,869,418 129,859,972 131,869,418 129,859,972<br />
Appropriations credited to Special Accounts (excluding GST) - - - - - -<br />
Balance <strong>of</strong> Authority to Draw Cash from the CRF for Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations - - 24,433,602 15,806,369 24,433,602 15,806,369<br />
Represented by:<br />
Cash at bank and on hand - - 3,859,311 3,761,654 3,859,311 3,761,654<br />
Receivables - departmental appropriations - - 19,855,069 11,583,426 19,855,069 11,583,426<br />
Receivables - GST receivable from the ATO - - 991,679 744,285 991,679 744,285<br />
Payables - GST payable - - (59,540) (80,408) (59,540) (80,408)<br />
Less: Other Payables - - (212,917) (202,588) (212,917) (202,588)<br />
Total - - 24,433,602 15,806,369 24,433,602 15,806,369<br />
152<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Note 21B: Acquittal <strong>of</strong> Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for Other than Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations<br />
Particulars Administered Non-operating Total<br />
Outcome 1<br />
SPPs NAE Equity Loans Previous years'<br />
outputs<br />
Admin assets and<br />
liabilities<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
Year ended 30 June 2006 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $<br />
Balance carried from previous year - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000 -<br />
Reduction <strong>of</strong> appropriations (prior years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Adjusted balance carried from previous period - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000 -<br />
Appropriation Act (No.2) 2005 - 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Appropriation Act (No.4) 2005 - 2006 - - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000<br />
Departmental Adjustments and Borrowings - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Advance to the Finance Minister - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Adjustment <strong>of</strong> appropriations on change <strong>of</strong> entity function (FMAA s32) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Refunds credited (net) (FMAA s30) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Appropriation reduced by a section 11 determination (current year) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Sub-total 2005 - 06 Annual Appropriation - - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000<br />
Appropriations to take account <strong>of</strong> recoverable GST (FMAA s30A) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Total appropriations available for payments - - - - 1,703,000 1,703,000 - - - - - - 1,703,000 1,703,000<br />
Cash payments made during the year (GST inclusive) - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000 -<br />
Appropriations credited to Special Accounts (GST exclusive) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
Balance <strong>of</strong> Authority to Draw Cash from the CRF for Other Than Ordinary Annual Services Appropriations - - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000<br />
Represented by:<br />
Departmental appropriation receivable - - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000<br />
Total - - - - - 1,703,000 - - - - - - - 1,703,000<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 153
Notes to and forming part part <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the the Financial Statements<br />
Note 21C:<br />
Acquittal <strong>of</strong> Authority to Draw Cash from the Consolidated Revenue Fund - Special<br />
Appropriations (Limited Amount)<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Special Administered Appropriations - Refunds 2006 2005<br />
Outcome 1<br />
$ $<br />
Legal Authority: <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975<br />
Purpose:Amounts paid in accordance with the <strong>Family</strong> Law Regulations (F L Regs) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 that<br />
are subsequently refunded in accordance with F L Reg 11 (Sub-section 8 and 9).<br />
Amount available carried from previous period - -<br />
Appropriation for <strong>report</strong>ing period 30,000 50,820<br />
Available for payments 30,000 50,820<br />
Cash payments made during the year (GST inclusive) 27,954 50,820<br />
Appropriations lapsed 2,046 -<br />
Amount available carried to the next period - -<br />
Note 22:<br />
Special Accounts<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Litigants Fund Special Account<br />
2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Legal Authority:Financial Management and Accountability Act, 1997: s20(1).<br />
Purpose:for the receipt <strong>of</strong> monies temporarily held on trust or otherwise for the benefit <strong>of</strong> a person other than the<br />
Commonwealth<br />
Balance carried from previous year 178,339 428,614<br />
Costs recovered 449,771 202,208<br />
Available for payments 628,110 630,822<br />
Payments made (127,202) (452,483)<br />
Balance carried to next year 500,908 178,339<br />
Represented by:<br />
Cash transferred to the Official Public Account 118,788 175,973<br />
Add: <strong>Court</strong> Litigants Fund Official Trust Account 376,120 -<br />
Add: Administered Payments Account 6,000 -<br />
Add: Outstanding Deposits held by the <strong>Court</strong> - 2,366<br />
Total balance carried to the next period 500,908 178,339<br />
Aggregate <strong>of</strong> Special Account Balance and Related Investments 500,908 178,339<br />
Other Trust Monies Special Account 2006 2005<br />
$ $<br />
Legal Authority: Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, s20<br />
Purpose: for the expenditure <strong>of</strong> monies temporarily held on trust or otherwise for the<br />
benefit <strong>of</strong> a person other than the Commonwealth<br />
Other receipts 35,329 208,565<br />
Available for payments 35,329 208,565<br />
Payments during the year 34,602 208,565<br />
Balance carried to next year 727 -<br />
Represented by:<br />
Cash transferred to the Official Public Account 727 -<br />
Total balance carried to the next period 727 -<br />
154<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Note 23:<br />
Compensation and Debt Relief<br />
2006<br />
$<br />
2005<br />
$<br />
Administered<br />
No Act <strong>of</strong> Grace payments were made during the <strong>report</strong>ing period pursuant to<br />
subsection 33(1) <strong>of</strong> the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (2005:<br />
no expenses). NIL NIL<br />
No waivers <strong>of</strong> amounts owing to the Commonwealth were made pursuant to<br />
subsection 34(1) <strong>of</strong> the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.(2005:<br />
No waivers) NIL NIL<br />
No ex-gratia payments were provided for during the <strong>report</strong>ing period. (2005: No<br />
payment) NIL NIL<br />
Amounts owing to the Commonwealth were made pursuant to the <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
Regulations (F L Regs) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975. Fees are not payable where a<br />
person has been granted Legal Aid (F L Regs 11 (7) (c)) or the holder <strong>of</strong> a card<br />
issued by Centrelink (F L Regs 11 (7) (c-d)). Persons not eligible for exemption<br />
under the <strong>Family</strong> Law Regulations may apply to have the fee waived by the <strong>Court</strong><br />
due to financial hardship (F L Regs 11 (7) (e)).<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
2006 2005<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> exemptions and waivers 9,237 10,246<br />
Aggregate amount <strong>of</strong> the recovery which was exempted and waived. $ 1,871,907 $ 2,067,321<br />
Note 24:<br />
Reporting <strong>of</strong> Outcomes<br />
Note 24A:<br />
Net Cost <strong>of</strong> Outcome Delivery<br />
Outcome 1<br />
Total<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
$ $ $ $<br />
Administered expenses 21,418 27,924 21,418 27,924<br />
Departmental expenses 142,766,403 131,129,820 142,766,403 131,129,820<br />
Total expenses 142,787,821 131,157,744 142,787,821 131,157,744<br />
Costs recovered from provision <strong>of</strong> goods and services to the<br />
non-government sector<br />
Administered 2,346,002 2,327,604 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Departmental 553,122 508,229 553,122 508,229<br />
Total costs recovered 2,899,124 2,835,833 2,899,124 2,835,833<br />
Other external income<br />
Departmental<br />
Interest 916,971 723,663 916,971 723,663<br />
Other revenue 1,963,251 1,602,810 1,963,251 1,602,810<br />
Other gains 1,185,073 110,350 1,185,073 110,350<br />
Total Departmental 4,065,295 2,436,823 4,065,295 2,436,823<br />
Total other external income 4,065,295 2,436,823 4,065,295 2,436,823<br />
Net cost/(contribution) <strong>of</strong> outcome 135,823,402 125,885,088 135,823,402 125,885,088<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 155
Financial sTATEMENTS Part 7<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Note 24B: Major Classes <strong>of</strong> Departmental Income and Expenses by Output Groups and Outputs<br />
Outcome 1 Output Group 1.1 Output Group 1.1 Output Group 1.2<br />
Output 1.1.1 Output 1.1.2 Output 1.2.1<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
$ $ $ $ $ $<br />
Departmental expenses<br />
Employees 11,044,225 9,577,044 1,822,269 1,804,730 5,874,735 5,442,847<br />
Suppliers 8,399,659 7,183,509 1,385,922 1,353,684 4,468,015 4,082,548<br />
Depreciation and amortisation 1,168,144 936,301 192,741 176,440 621,369 532,121<br />
Other expenses 456,685 318,157 75,352 59,954 242,923 180,815<br />
Total departmental expenses 21,068,713 18,015,011 3,476,284 3,394,808 11,207,042 10,238,331<br />
Funded by:<br />
Income from Government 20,196,744 17,668,778 3,332,412 3,329,563 10,743,217 10,041,558<br />
Sale <strong>of</strong> goods and services 81,627 69,822 13,468 13,157 43,420 39,681<br />
Other non-taxation income 599,935 334,778 98,988 63,087 319,122 190,262<br />
Total departmental income 20,878,306 18,073,378 3,444,868 3,405,807 11,105,759 10,271,501<br />
Outcome 1 (continued) Output Group 1.2 Output Group 1.2 Output Group 1.2 Outcome 1 Total<br />
Output 1.2.2 Output 1.2.3 Output 1.2.4<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $<br />
Departmental expenses<br />
Employees 12,052,311 14,246,861 40,740,148 34,615,282 3,304,504 4,023,771 74,838,192 69,710,535<br />
Suppliers 9,166,355 10,686,226 30,984,820 25,964,087 2,513,233 3,018,133 56,918,004 52,288,187<br />
Depreciation and amortisation 1,274,768 1,392,847 4,309,070 3,384,168 349,516 393,385 7,915,608 6,815,262<br />
Other expenses 498,369 473,291 1,684,627 1,149,946 136,643 133,673 3,094,599 2,315,836<br />
Total departmental expenses 22,991,803 26,799,225 77,718,665 65,113,483 6,303,896 7,568,962 142,766,403 131,129,820<br />
Funded by:<br />
Income from Government 22,040,246 26,284,165 74,502,133 63,862,054 6,042,997 7,423,492 136,857,749 128,609,610<br />
Sale <strong>of</strong> goods and services 89,077 103,868 301,107 252,365 24,423 29,336 553,122 508,229<br />
Other non-taxation income 654,695 498,018 2,213,051 1,210,022 179,504 140,656 4,065,295 2,436,823<br />
Total departmental income 22,784,018 26,886,051 77,016,291 65,324,441 6,246,924 7,593,484 141,476,166 131,554,662<br />
156<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Notes to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Financial Statements<br />
Note 24C: Major Classes <strong>of</strong> Administered Income and Expenses by Outcomes<br />
Outcome 1 Total<br />
2006 2005 2006 2005<br />
$ $ $ $<br />
Administered Income<br />
Total Goods and Services 2,346,002 2,327,604 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Total Administered Income 2,346,002 2,327,604 2,346,002 2,327,604<br />
Administered Expenses<br />
Fees refunded 21,418 27,924 21,418 27,924<br />
Total Administered Expenses 21,418 27,924 21,418 27,924<br />
Part 7<br />
Financial sTATEMENTS<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 157
Appendices<br />
Part 8
Appendix 1: court committees AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS Part 8<br />
160<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Appendix 1 <strong>Court</strong> Committees and Public Submissions<br />
Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee<br />
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meets quarterly to support the Chief Justice in<br />
the administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> and to provide her with strategic advice and policy<br />
direction, particularly in relation to legislative, procedural and administrative changes<br />
likely to affect the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> and its users. Membership <strong>of</strong> the Policy Advisory<br />
Committee during 2005-06 comprised:<br />
The Hon. Chief Justice Bryant<br />
The Hon. Deputy Chief Justice Faulks<br />
The Hon. Justice Finn<br />
The Hon. Justice May (until March 2006)<br />
The Hon. Justice Mullane<br />
The Hon. Justice Mushin<br />
The Hon. Justice Dawe<br />
The Hon. Justice Rose<br />
The Hon. Justice Strickland<br />
The Hon. Justice Carmody (from March 2006)<br />
Mr Richard Foster, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Ms Angela Filippello, Principal Registrar<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 1: court committees AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS<br />
Rules Committee<br />
The Rules Committee is established under section 123 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, which<br />
provides that a majority <strong>of</strong> judges may make rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in relation to practices and<br />
procedures to be followed in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
The Rules Committee meets monthly to consider proposed changes to the <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Rules 2004 with a view to improving the efficiency, accessibility and cost<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> for its clients. The Rules Committee also<br />
undertakes detailed consideration <strong>of</strong> discrete issues as required, such as the rules<br />
governing single expert witnesses.<br />
The Chair <strong>of</strong> the Rules Committee is Justice Strickland.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 161
Other committees<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> has a number <strong>of</strong> other permanent Committees that meet by telephone on a<br />
regular basis or as required, after court hours. They are:<br />
Appendix 1: court committees AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS Part 8<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee (Chair: Justice Moore)<br />
Access to Justice Committee (Chair: Deputy Chief Justice Faulks)<br />
Communications Committee (Chair: Chief Justice Bryant)<br />
Electronic Benchbook Committee (Chair: Justice Rose)<br />
Ethics and Research Committee (Chair: Justice Morgan — until February 2006,<br />
Judicial Registrar Smith — from February 2006)<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee (Chair: Justice Moore)<br />
Information and Communication Technology Committee<br />
(Chair: Deputy Chief Justice Faulks)<br />
Judgment Publication Committee (Chair: Justice Finn)<br />
Law Reform Committee (Chair: Justice O’Ryan — until March 2006,<br />
Justice Carmody — from March 2006)<br />
Library Committee (Chair: Justice Finn)<br />
National Case Management Committee (Chair: Deputy Chief Justice Faulks)<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Development Committee (Chair: Justice Warnick)<br />
Property Management Committee (Chair: Justice Dawe)<br />
Committee highlights<br />
The Communications Committee was established in 2005-06 to develop and<br />
implement policies concerning the handling <strong>of</strong> media issues, the <strong>report</strong>ing <strong>of</strong><br />
proceedings and communicating the <strong>Court</strong>’s function and role to clients, external<br />
stakeholders and the media. Committee members participated in a one-day workshop<br />
in May 2006 to discuss and decide on key elements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s communications<br />
and external positioning approach, as well as informing the future direction <strong>of</strong><br />
communications activities.<br />
The Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Development Committee meets regularly to discuss policies and<br />
programs designed to support judging and judicial development. The Committee<br />
also plays an important role in developing education programs for the Judges’ Annual<br />
Conference.<br />
During 2005-06, the <strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee supervised the application <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s <strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy. It was also engaged in developing guidelines for<br />
the final phase <strong>of</strong> the Strategy — case management — and for the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> section 60K <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Act, which requires the <strong>Court</strong> to give prompt<br />
consideration to allegations <strong>of</strong> family violence or child abuse.<br />
162<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
In addition to the Law Reform Committee’s major work in providing responses<br />
to requests by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department for comment<br />
in relation to proposed legislation, during 2005-06 the Committee considered a<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> issues associated with the <strong>Court</strong>’s implementation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. The Law Reform Committee was<br />
instrumental in the preparation <strong>of</strong> submissions to the House <strong>of</strong> Representatives and<br />
Senate legal and constitutional committees’ inquiries into aspects <strong>of</strong> the Bill (now Act).<br />
The Committee also prepared a submission in response to a discussion paper issued by<br />
the Trans-Tasman Working group entitled Tran-Tasman <strong>Court</strong> Proceedings and Regulatory<br />
Enforcement; a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission as part <strong>of</strong> its<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> the Uniform Evidence Acts; and a submission to the Standing Committee <strong>of</strong><br />
Attorneys-General Working Party on Reform to Advocates’ Immunity. Additionally the<br />
Law Reform Committee assisted the Chief Justice in the preparation <strong>of</strong> her submission<br />
to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Council’s relocation inquiry.<br />
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee, in consultation with local<br />
Indigenous communities, was closely involved in the development and design <strong>of</strong> the<br />
new Indigenous courtroom (known as ‘Wadna Wadna Wodli’) in the Adelaide Registry.<br />
The registry was opened in February 2006 and a separate formal opening for Wadna<br />
Wadna Wodli was held in May 2006.<br />
The Judgment Publication Committee, in partnership with the <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
Communications Office, was involved in an ongoing project to make summaries <strong>of</strong> key<br />
judgments available to members <strong>of</strong> the public. This is another way in which the <strong>Court</strong><br />
is furthering its commitment to making proceedings more accessible to the broader<br />
community. It is anticipated that judgment summaries will be made available through<br />
the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s website in the 2006-07 financial year.<br />
The structure <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Violence and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
Committee was changed during 2005-06. Both Committees now <strong>report</strong> directly to the<br />
Chief Justice rather than to the Access to Justice Committee. Accordingly, the Access to<br />
Justice Committee has now been disbanded.<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 1: court committees AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS<br />
Public Submissions<br />
During 2005-06, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> made written submissions to the House <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ Inquiry into<br />
the Exposure Draft <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility)<br />
Bill 2005, and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee’s Inquiry into the<br />
Provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005.<br />
Copies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s submissions can be found on the Australian Parliament House<br />
website, www.aph.gov.au. The Chief Justice also made a submission in response to the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Council’s discussion paper on relocation.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 163
In addition, the Chief Justice, Justice O’Ryan and the Hon. Mr Richard Chisholm<br />
gave evidence to the House <strong>of</strong> Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and<br />
Constitutional Affairs’ Inquiry into the Exposure Draft <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment<br />
(Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 in Canberra on 26 July 2005.<br />
Appendix 1: court committees AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS Part 8<br />
A <strong>copy</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transcript <strong>of</strong> evidence can be obtained from the Committee’s website at<br />
www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/familylaw/hearings.htm.<br />
164<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Appendix 2 Judicial activities<br />
In addition to hearing and determining cases, the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s judges and judicial<br />
registrars actively contribute to the development <strong>of</strong> the law both in Australia and<br />
internationally. This is achieved through attending conferences and seminars,<br />
presenting papers, addressing pr<strong>of</strong>essional associations and community-based organisations,<br />
meeting international delegations and liaising with judicial colleagues around<br />
the world.<br />
Many judges and judicial registrars also serve as members <strong>of</strong> organising committees for<br />
conferences as well as working in the community with legal and cultural organisations.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the Chief Justice’s engagements for 2005-06 is below.<br />
Chief Justice activities<br />
Conferences attended<br />
11-12 November 2005 <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Judges’ Conference, Sydney<br />
22 April 2006 Justice Environment Conference, <strong>Court</strong> Technology for<br />
Complex Spaces and Places, Melbourne<br />
4-6 May 2006 International Association <strong>of</strong> Women Judges Conference,<br />
Sydney<br />
Speaking engagements<br />
5 August 2005 The Children’s Voice and the Children’s Cases Program, Address<br />
to the Tasmanian Child Representative Conference, St Helens<br />
6 August 2005 <strong>Family</strong> Law Reform: real or illusory?, Keynote address, <strong>Family</strong><br />
Law Practitioners Association Annual Conference 2005,<br />
Hobart<br />
31 August 2005 Openness and Accountability: the view from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>,<br />
Keynote address, NSW Local <strong>Court</strong>s Annual Conference 2005<br />
18 October 2005 Cooperation between the <strong>Court</strong>s and the Community Sector<br />
in light <strong>of</strong> the New <strong>Family</strong> Law Reforms, Keynote address,<br />
Catholic Welfare Australia Annual Conference 2005, Ballarat<br />
26 November 2005 State <strong>of</strong> the Nation, Keynote address, <strong>Family</strong> Law<br />
Practitioners Association <strong>of</strong> Western Australia Annual<br />
Conference 2005, Margaret River<br />
1 December 2005 The Proposed Reforms and the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia,<br />
Address to <strong>Family</strong> Relationships in Transition: Legislative<br />
and Policy Responses Conference, Australian Institute <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Family</strong> Studies, Canberra<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 2: Judicial activiTIES<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 165
Appendix 2: Judicial activitIES Part 8<br />
1 May 2006 The role <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> in promoting child-centred<br />
practice, Keynote address, <strong>Family</strong> Law Conference, Byron<br />
Bay<br />
6 May 2006 An update on developments in the <strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s, Address<br />
to the 10th Annual <strong>Family</strong> Law Intensive, Melbourne<br />
16 May 2006 Shutting the Stable Door — Women and Judicial Office,<br />
Keynote address, Victorian Women Law Students’ Collective<br />
breakfast, Melbourne<br />
19 May 2006 Child Inclusive Approaches and Section 60K, Address to the<br />
Tasmanian Child Representative Conference 2006, Hobart<br />
20 May 2006 Recent Developments in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia,<br />
Address to the <strong>Family</strong> Law Practitioners Association Annual<br />
Conference 2006, Hobart<br />
7 June 2006 The ‘Helping <strong>Court</strong>’ comes <strong>full</strong> circle: The application and use<br />
<strong>of</strong> therapeutic jurisprudence in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia,<br />
AIJA Third International Conference on Therapeutic<br />
Jurisprudence, Perth (paper only - did not attend)<br />
Delegations and international assistance<br />
12-13 July 2005 Delegation from the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> New Zealand, led by<br />
the Hon. Peter Boshier, Principal <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Judge<br />
31 October 2005 Attendance at the opening <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Fiji<br />
Islands<br />
14-25 November 2005 Delegation from the Religious <strong>Court</strong> Judiciary <strong>of</strong> Indonesia,<br />
led by Widiana Wahyu, Directorate General <strong>of</strong> the Religious<br />
<strong>Court</strong> Body<br />
Other judicial activities<br />
Other activities engaged in by the judges and judicial registrars <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
during 2005-06 include:<br />
presentations at the <strong>Court</strong>’s Living in Harmony and <strong>Family</strong> Violence forums<br />
delivery <strong>of</strong> specialised seminars to students at the Queensland University <strong>of</strong><br />
Technology, the Leo Cussen Institute and the National College <strong>of</strong> Law<br />
reviewing judgment writing sessions delivered by the National Judicial College <strong>of</strong><br />
Australia<br />
conducting simulated litigation programs for the Queensland Law Society<br />
presiding at moot courts at the University <strong>of</strong> Newcastle law faculty, and<br />
presenting papers to practitioner associations and at conferences.<br />
166<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Many judges and judicial registrars are also members <strong>of</strong> organising committees for<br />
local, national and international conferences.<br />
Conferences attended by judges and judicial registrars in the <strong>report</strong>ing year include<br />
the Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> and Conciliation <strong>Court</strong> Judges Annual Conference, the<br />
Commonwealth Law Conference and the Malta Judicial Conference on Cross-Frontier<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Issues.<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 2: Judicial activiTIES<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 167
Appendix 3 Contact details<br />
Key contacts<br />
Appendix 3: Contact details Part 8<br />
NATIONAL ENQUIRY CENTRE<br />
GPO Box 9991<br />
Parramatta NSW 2124<br />
Phone: 1300 352 000<br />
Email: <br />
CHIEF JUSTICE’S CHA<strong>MB</strong>ERS<br />
305 William Street, Melbourne VIC<br />
(GPO Box 9991, VIC 3001)<br />
Phone: 03 8600 4333<br />
NATIONAL SUPPORT OFFICE<br />
Chief Executive Officer<br />
15 London Circuit, Canberra ACT<br />
(GPO Box 9991, ACT 2601)<br />
Phone: 02 6243 8600<br />
PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR<br />
Cnr Tank St and North Quay, Brisbane QLD<br />
(GPO Box 9991, QLD 4001)<br />
Phone: 07 3248 2200<br />
FAMILY COURT WEBSITE:<br />
www.familycourt.gov.au<br />
FAMILY LAW COURTS WEBSITE:<br />
www.familylawcourts.gov.au<br />
168<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Registries<br />
ADELAIDE<br />
3 Angas St, Adelaide SA<br />
(GPO Box 9991, SA 5001)<br />
ALBURY<br />
463 Kiewa Street, Albury NSW<br />
(PO Box 914, NSW 2640)<br />
ALICE SPRINGS<br />
Centrepoint Building, Hartley St, Alice Springs NT<br />
(PO Box 9991, NT 0871)<br />
BRISBANE<br />
119 North Quay, Brisbane QLD<br />
(GPO Box 9991, QLD 4001)<br />
CAIRNS<br />
Level 4, 104 Grafton St, Cairns QLD<br />
(PO Box 9991, QLD 4870)<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 3: Contact details<br />
CANBERRA<br />
Cnr University Ave & Childers St, Canberra ACT<br />
(GPO Box 9991, ACT 2601)<br />
DANDENONG<br />
53-55 Robinson St, Dandenong VIC<br />
(PO Box 9991, VIC 3175)<br />
DARWIN<br />
Level 1, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin NT<br />
(GPO Box 9991, NT 0800)<br />
DUBBO<br />
Cnr Macquarie & Wingewarra Sts, Dubbo NSW<br />
(PO Box 1567, NSW 2830)<br />
HOBART<br />
39-41 Davey St, Hobart TAS<br />
(GPO Box 9991, TAS 7001)<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 169
LAUNCESTON<br />
Level 3, Cnr Brisbane and George Sts, Launceston TAS<br />
(GPO Box 9991, TAS 7250)<br />
Appendix 3: Contact details Part 8<br />
LISMORE<br />
Level 2, 29-31 Molesworth St, Lismore NSW<br />
(PO Box 9, NSW 2480)<br />
MELBOURNE<br />
305 William St, Melbourne VIC<br />
(GPO Box 9991, VIC 3001)<br />
NEWCASTLE<br />
61 Bolton St, Newcastle NSW<br />
(PO Box 9991, NSW 2300)<br />
PARRAMATTA<br />
1-3 George St, Parramatta NSW<br />
(PMG CC10, NSW 2123)<br />
ROCKHAMPTON<br />
Level 4, Cnr East & Fitzroy Sts, Rockhampton QLD<br />
(PO Box 9991, QLD 4700)<br />
SYDNEY<br />
97-99 Goulburn St, Sydney NSW<br />
(GPO Box 9991, NSW 2001)<br />
TOWNSVILLE<br />
Level 2, 143 Walker Street, Townsville QLD<br />
(PO Box 9991, QLD 4810)<br />
WOLLONGONG<br />
Level 1, 43 Burelli St, Wollongong NSW<br />
(PO Box 825, NSW 2500)<br />
170<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
APPENDIX 4 Resources for Outcomes<br />
Outcome 1<br />
Serving the interests <strong>of</strong> the Australian community by ensuring families and children<br />
in need can access effective high quality services.<br />
Budget 1 Actual<br />
Budget 2<br />
expenses<br />
2005-06 2005-06 Variation 2006-07<br />
$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000<br />
Administered Expenses 0 21 (21) 0<br />
Total Administered Expenses 0 21 (21) 0<br />
Price <strong>of</strong> Departmental Outputs<br />
Output Group 1.1 - Resolution<br />
Output 1.1.1 - Mediated Agreements 24,360 21,069 3,291 20,168<br />
Output 1.1.2 - Consent Orders 2,919 3,476 (557) 3,328<br />
Subtotal Output Group 1.1 27,279 24,545 2,734 23,496<br />
Output Group 1.2 - Determination<br />
Output 1.2.1 - Divorces 5,459 11,207 (5,748) 10,728<br />
Output 1.2.2 - Interim Orders 29,567 22,992 6,575 22,009<br />
Output 1.2.3 - Final Orders 65,838 77,719 (11,881) 74,397<br />
Output 1.2.4 - Appeals 9,390 6,304 3,086 6,035<br />
Subtotal Output Group 1.2 110,254 118,222 (7,968) 113,169<br />
Part 8<br />
Appendix 4: Resources for outcomes<br />
Revenue from Government for 137,533 136,858 675 136,665<br />
Departmental Outputs 3, 4<br />
Revenue from other sources 850 4,618 (3,768) 2,750<br />
Total Price <strong>of</strong> Outputs 138,383 141,476 (3,093) 139,415<br />
TOTAL FOR OUTCOME 1<br />
(Total price <strong>of</strong> Outputs and<br />
Administered Expenses)<br />
138,383 141,498 (3,115) 139,415<br />
2005-06 2006-07<br />
Average Staffing Level 710 680<br />
1<br />
Full-year budget, including additional estimates.<br />
2<br />
Budget prior to additional estimates.<br />
3<br />
Includes liabilities assumed by other Government Agencies for Judicial pensions and<br />
services provided free <strong>of</strong> charge.<br />
4<br />
Actual figure includes accrued appropriations associated with Judicial pay increases.<br />
5<br />
The 2005/06 Budget figures are based on an earlier version <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>’s ABC model<br />
compared to the 2005/06 Actuals and 2006/07 Budget which have been allocated<br />
based on the <strong>Court</strong>’s most recent ABC model.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 171
GLOSSARY OF TERMS<br />
Part 9
Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms Part 9<br />
174<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms<br />
Appeal – A procedure which enables a person to challenge the decision made about<br />
their case by the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Appellant – The person who seeks an appeal.<br />
Case – The matter before the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Case Management Directions – A set <strong>of</strong> directions which the <strong>Court</strong> uses to help clients<br />
achieve a just resolution <strong>of</strong> their dispute in a way which is prompt and economical.<br />
Casetrack – The <strong>Court</strong>’s integrated case management system.<br />
Consent orders – These may be made where the parties come to an agreement and<br />
lodge that agreement in writing (usually called ‘Terms <strong>of</strong> Settlement’) for approval by<br />
the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Conciliation conference – A conference convened by legally trained registrars in the<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>. It involves all parties and their lawyers to resolve disputes in financial<br />
cases.<br />
Part 9<br />
Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms<br />
Determination phase – Commences once the last resolution phase event has concluded<br />
without final resolution being achieved.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> consultant (‘Indigenous family liaison <strong>of</strong>ficer’ post 1 July 2006) – Pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
that provide on-going assistance in a privileged setting, from mediation services<br />
through to the trial stage.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975 – The legislation under which cases are decided in the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>report</strong> – A behavioural science assessment <strong>of</strong> a family, from a non-legal and<br />
non‐partisan perspective, independent <strong>of</strong> the case presented by either party to a<br />
dispute. <strong>Court</strong> mediators (‘family consultant’ post 1 July 2006) or private <strong>report</strong> writers<br />
commissioned by the parties jointly or by the independent children’s lawyer, prepare<br />
family <strong>report</strong>s.<br />
Federal Magistrate – A judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> the Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Final orders – means the order <strong>of</strong> the court that finally decides a case that is<br />
commenced by an Application for Final Orders (Form 1).<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> – A Full <strong>Court</strong> consists <strong>of</strong> three or more judges together hearing an appeal<br />
from a decision <strong>of</strong> another judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
Interim application – An application for an order intended to continue until a further<br />
order <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Judgment – A decision <strong>of</strong> a judge, judicial registrar or registrar at a hearing.<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 175
Judicial Registrar – A judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer who holds similar powers to a judge.<br />
Magellan – A case management system designed to ensure that matters involving<br />
allegations <strong>of</strong> serious child abuse are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible<br />
Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms Part 9<br />
Mediation (‘Child dispute services’ post 1 July) – Services <strong>of</strong>fered by the <strong>Court</strong> to help<br />
settle disputes by agreement rather than a hearing. Sessions deal with children’s issues<br />
or combined children’s and financial issues. They can be conducted by mediators<br />
(‘family consultants’ post 1 July 2006) trained in law, social work or psychology or<br />
counsellors who are expert in children’s issues and who also have a background in<br />
social work or psychology.<br />
Mediator (‘<strong>Family</strong> consultant’ post 1 July 2006) – Pr<strong>of</strong>essionals trained in law, social<br />
work or psychology, or counsellors who are expert in children’s issues and who also<br />
have a background in social work or psychology.<br />
Order – The <strong>Court</strong> has the power to order a person to do certain things. Judicial<br />
registrars and registrars can only make certain types <strong>of</strong> orders.<br />
Parties – Both the applicant and respondent are parties to the proceeding. If a third<br />
party is joined or someone is given permission to intervene they also become parties to<br />
the proceedings.<br />
Pending – Pending matters are cases that have not yet been finalised by judgment or<br />
otherwise.<br />
Pending cases inventory – An inventory <strong>of</strong> cases filed but not yet disposed make up the<br />
<strong>Court</strong>’s pending caseload.<br />
Practice Directions - Practice Directions are issued by the Chief Justice for the assistance<br />
<strong>of</strong> clients and practitioners about the conduct <strong>of</strong> proceedings before the <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Registry – An <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong> that files court documents or accepts court documents<br />
for filing.<br />
Resolution phase – Covers the period from the commencement <strong>of</strong> proceedings to the<br />
point at which it is decided that a matter should be prepared for trial.<br />
Rules – The <strong>Family</strong> Law Rules, sometimes referred to as the Rules <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>, set out<br />
key obligations such as what forms must be used, when they must be filed and any<br />
other requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>. The Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> has its own Rules.<br />
Trial – The final hearing <strong>of</strong> a matter before a judge, federal magistrate, or judicial<br />
registrar. Having considered all the evidence presented, the judicial <strong>of</strong>ficer will make<br />
orders to finalise the matter.<br />
176<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
INDEXES<br />
Part 10
Compliance index Part 10<br />
178<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Compliance Index<br />
This is a guide to the <strong>report</strong>’s compliance with the Requirements for Annual Reports as<br />
approved by the Joint Committee <strong>of</strong> Public Accounts and Audit in June 2006.<br />
Letter <strong>of</strong> transmittal<br />
iii<br />
Aids to access<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> contents<br />
v<br />
Compliance index 179<br />
Alphabetical index 181<br />
Figures and table index<br />
vii<br />
Glossary <strong>of</strong> acronyms<br />
xi<br />
Glossary <strong>of</strong> terms 173<br />
Contact <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
x<br />
Internet home page address<br />
x<br />
Internet address for <strong>report</strong>s<br />
x<br />
Part 10<br />
Compliance index<br />
Year in review<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> significant issues and developments 1–9<br />
Outlook for the following year 9, 31<br />
Organisational overview<br />
Role and functions 13<br />
Organisational structure 14, 28, 161–163<br />
Outcome and output structure 13,32<br />
Report on performance<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> performance 31–53<br />
Discussion and analysis <strong>of</strong> performance 31–53<br />
Factors, events or trends influencing organisational performance 8, 31, 36, 42–44<br />
Client feedback and complaint management 102–103<br />
Financial performance<br />
Financial statements 111–157<br />
Discussion and analysis <strong>of</strong> the organisation’s financial performance 16, 126–134<br />
Resources for outcome and outputs 171<br />
Consultancy services and contracts 107<br />
Competitive tendering and contracting 106<br />
Assessment <strong>of</strong> purchasing against core policies 103–106<br />
Corporate governance<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 179
Compliance index Part 10<br />
Corporate governance practices 14–17<br />
Senior management committees and their roles 14, 161–163<br />
Risk management 15–16<br />
Fraud control 15–16<br />
Asset management 104–106<br />
Advertising and market research 109<br />
External scrutiny<br />
Significant developments in external scrutiny 103<br />
Judicial decisions and decisions <strong>of</strong> administrative tribunals 103<br />
Reports by the Auditor-General, Parliamentary Committee or<br />
Commonwealth Ombudsman 3, 103, 163–164<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> human resources<br />
Effectiveness in managing and developing human resources 91–100<br />
Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention 92–93<br />
Occupational health and safety 97–99<br />
Statistics on staffing 94–96<br />
Certified Agreement and AWAs 94<br />
Performance pay 96<br />
Report on performance in implementing the Commonwealth<br />
Disability Strategy 100<br />
Other<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information 100–102<br />
Discretionary grants 108<br />
Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance 108<br />
Correction <strong>of</strong> material errors in previous annual <strong>report</strong><br />
Some data <strong>report</strong>ed in Part 3 Report on <strong>Court</strong> Performance may differ from that<br />
published in previous annual <strong>report</strong>s. For further information please refer to the<br />
section headed ‘Data Quality’ on page 32.<br />
180<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Alphabetical Index<br />
A<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Committee, 7, 14, 162, 163<br />
Absenteeism, reducing, 92<br />
Access to Justice Committee, 14, 162, 163<br />
Acumen Alliance, 15<br />
Adelaide <strong>Court</strong>, opening <strong>of</strong>, 7<br />
Adelaide Registry, 17, 20, 105, 163<br />
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 100<br />
Advertising, 109<br />
Albury Registry, 106<br />
Allesch v Mauntz requirement, 48<br />
Amendment<br />
leave to amend, 78<br />
Appeal Division, 47–54<br />
judges assigned to, 47<br />
performance, 53<br />
Appeals<br />
administration, 48<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> as appellate court, as, 13, 31<br />
High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia, to, 53<br />
interlocutory applications, 48<br />
right <strong>of</strong> appeal, 47<br />
statistics, 49–53<br />
trends in, 48<br />
Appeals Information System, 48<br />
Appeals Notices, 49<br />
Appeals Registrar, 48<br />
Applications<br />
consent orders, for, 34–5<br />
divorce, for, 36–8<br />
final orders, for, 8, 39–43<br />
interim orders, for, 38–9<br />
total number <strong>of</strong>, 33<br />
Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), 3, 6, 16, 17, 163<br />
Audit Report No. 46 2003–04, 103<br />
Audits, 15<br />
Australia Day medallions, 92<br />
Australian Equivalent <strong>of</strong> International Reporting Standards, 16<br />
Part 10<br />
Alphabetical Index<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 181
Alphabetical Index Part 10<br />
Australian Government Information Management Office, 100<br />
Australian Greenhouse Office, 108<br />
Australian Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> Studies (AIFS), 17, 18<br />
Australian Law Reform Commission, 163<br />
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), 16, 103<br />
Australian Public Service Commission, 92, 100<br />
Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), 94<br />
B<br />
Benchbook, 3<br />
Benefits, non-salary, 95<br />
Bennett, Barbara, 98<br />
Better Practice Guide on Public Sector Audit Committees, 16<br />
Brisbane Registry, 17, 106<br />
Brochures, prescribed, 101–2<br />
Bryant, Chief Justice Diana, xiii, 20<br />
Business Risk and Fraud Control plan, 15<br />
C<br />
Cairns Registry, 104<br />
Canberra Registry, 106<br />
Case Management Directions, 3<br />
Case Management Manual, 3<br />
Cases pending, 8, 42<br />
Casetrack, 18, 32, 48<br />
Certified Agreement 2005–07, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98<br />
Chief Executive Instructions (CEIs), 104<br />
Chief Executive Officer, xiii, 14, 15, 94<br />
Chief Federal Magistrate, 4, 8, 20<br />
Chief Justice <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, xiii, 4, 14, 17, 20, 47, 92, 164<br />
activities, 165–6<br />
review, 1–9<br />
Chief Justice’s <strong>Family</strong> Law Forum, 17<br />
Chief Justice’s Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), 14, 161<br />
Child abduction<br />
significant judgments, 57, 79, 81<br />
Child abuse<br />
allegations, 18, 69, 162<br />
serious cases, 31<br />
Child repatriation, significant judgments, 58<br />
Child Responsive Dispute Resolution Program, 6–7<br />
Child Support Agency, 17<br />
182<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Child Support Assessment Act 1989<br />
Pt 7, 47<br />
Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988<br />
Pt VIII, 47<br />
Children’s Cases Program (CCP), 5–6, 20, 103<br />
Chisholm, Hon. Mr Richard, 164<br />
Client feedback, 102–3<br />
Client Feedback and Complaints policy, 103<br />
Client satisfaction research, 15<br />
Combined Registry Program, 4–5<br />
Comcare Statement <strong>of</strong> Agreement 2002–12, 98<br />
Commonwealth Disability Strategy, 100<br />
Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines, 16<br />
Commonwealth Law <strong>Court</strong>s buildings, 105, 108<br />
Commonwealth procurement requirements, 104<br />
Communications Office, 163<br />
Communications Committee, 14, 162<br />
Community and Public Sector Union, 98<br />
Competitive tendering, 106<br />
Complaints management, 102–3<br />
Consent Orders, 34–5<br />
Consultants, 106–7<br />
Contact, significant judgments, 71, 84<br />
Contact details, 168<br />
Contracts, exempt, 106<br />
Costs, significant judgments<br />
disallowing part <strong>of</strong>, 68<br />
security for, 67<br />
Costs agreements, 87<br />
<strong>Court</strong> committees, 161<br />
<strong>Court</strong> initiatives, 17–20<br />
<strong>Court</strong> Management Group, 14<br />
Cultural Diversity Committee, 17<br />
D<br />
Part 10<br />
Alphabetical Index<br />
Dandenong Registry, 106<br />
Darwin Registry, 20, 105<br />
Data quality, 32<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Children’s Services (NSW), 18<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 17<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Ageing, 19<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), 19<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 183
Alphabetical Index Part 10<br />
Deputy Chief Justice, 17, 47, 161<br />
Determination output, 13, 32, 36–43<br />
Disability Strategy, 100<br />
Disabled Access Policy, 100<br />
Discretionary grants, 108<br />
Dispute resolution<br />
child responsive, 6–7<br />
services, 31<br />
Divorces, 36–8<br />
Do You Have a Complaint?, 103<br />
E<br />
Ecologically sustainable development, 108<br />
Electronic Benchbook Committee, 14, 162<br />
Employee Assistance Provider (EAP), 97<br />
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, 108<br />
Ethics and Research Committee, 14, 162<br />
Excellence in Performance Award Scheme, 92<br />
Exempt contracts, 106<br />
External scrutiny, 103<br />
F<br />
<strong>Family</strong> consultants, 6, 8, 18<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
appellate court, as, 13, 31<br />
applications, total number <strong>of</strong>, 33<br />
complex cases, 13, 31, 36, 44<br />
function, 13, 31<br />
locations, 25–7<br />
outputs, 13<br />
overview, 13<br />
projects, 17–20<br />
purposes, 13<br />
reduction in size <strong>of</strong>, 9<br />
Standing Committees, 14<br />
structure, 28<br />
website, x, 109<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Western Australia, 23, 27, 48<br />
Chief Judge, 23, 47<br />
judges <strong>of</strong>, 23<br />
184<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
<strong>Family</strong> Law Act 1975, 3<br />
s 60K, 18, 162<br />
s 114B, 17<br />
s 115, 16<br />
s 123, 161<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment Rules 2006, 4<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, 3, 16, 163<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Council, 16, 163<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s Board, 4<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law <strong>Court</strong>s’ National Enquiry Centre, 5, 105<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Forum, 17<br />
<strong>Family</strong> law reforms, 3–4<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Rules 2004, 4, 38, 100, 102, 161<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Law Section, Law Council <strong>of</strong> Australia, 17<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Relationship Advice Line (AGD), 4<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Relationship Centres, 3, 13, 15, 31<br />
<strong>Family</strong> violence, 17–18<br />
allegations <strong>of</strong>, 18, 162<br />
unacceptable risk, 75<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Violence Committee, 14, 18, 162<br />
<strong>Family</strong> Violence Strategy, 17, 162<br />
Federal Magistrates <strong>Court</strong> (FMC), 4, 13, 17, 50–1<br />
expansion <strong>of</strong>, 9, 15, 31<br />
resources, provision <strong>of</strong>, 8<br />
Final Order Applications, 8, 39–42<br />
typical pathway, 43<br />
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, 16<br />
Financial overview, 16<br />
Fire Wardens, 97, 99<br />
First Aid Officers, 97, 99<br />
First instance judgments, 77–88<br />
Flu vaccination program, 98<br />
FOI Coordinator, xii, 101<br />
Form 4: Notice <strong>of</strong> Child Abuse or <strong>Family</strong> Violence, 18<br />
Forms<br />
prescribed, 102<br />
Foster, Richard, xiii<br />
Fraud control, 15–16<br />
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information, 100<br />
categories <strong>of</strong> documents, 101<br />
facilities for access, 100<br />
Part 10<br />
Alphabetical Index<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 185
Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act 1982, 100, 101, 106<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia, 47<br />
judgments, 57–76<br />
sittings, 47<br />
G<br />
Alphabetical Index Part 10<br />
Governance, 14<br />
H<br />
Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, 13, 31<br />
Hazard Incident Checklist, 99<br />
Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs), 97, 99<br />
High <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia, appeals to, 53<br />
Hobart Registry, 106<br />
Howard, Hon. John, MP, 7<br />
Human resources management, 91<br />
Hunter, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Rosemary, 6<br />
I<br />
Indigenous courtroom, 7, 163<br />
Information and Communication Technology Committee, 14, 162<br />
Interim orders, applications for, 38–9<br />
Internal Audit Committee, 15–16<br />
International relocation, significant judgments, 13, 31, 82<br />
Interstate relocation, significant judgments, 63<br />
IPS Worldwide, 97–8<br />
J<br />
Janet Kitcher Excellence in Performance Award Scheme, 92<br />
Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), 103<br />
Judges<br />
Appeal Division, 47<br />
number <strong>of</strong>, 7, 9, 31, 95<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional development, 20<br />
who are, 21–4<br />
Judges Conference, 20, 162<br />
Judges Meeting, 20<br />
Judgment Publication Committee, 14, 162, 163<br />
Judgments<br />
first instance, 77–88<br />
Full <strong>Court</strong>, 57–76<br />
186<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Judicial activities, 165–7<br />
Judicial Orientation Program, 20<br />
Judicial registrars<br />
number <strong>of</strong>, 7, 9, 95<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional development, 20<br />
who are, 23<br />
Judicial workload, 7–8<br />
Jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong>s (<strong>Family</strong> Law) Act 2006, 4<br />
K<br />
Kuarna community, 7<br />
L<br />
Launceston Registry, 106<br />
Law Reform Committee, 14, 18, 162, 163<br />
Leadership Development Program, 93<br />
Legal representation, level <strong>of</strong>, 44<br />
Less adversarial trials, 5–6, 20<br />
Library Committee, 14, 162<br />
‘Living in Harmony’ Partnership Program, 19<br />
M<br />
Part 10<br />
Alphabetical Index<br />
McIntosh, Dr Jennifer, 5<br />
Magellan, 18–19<br />
Managers Helpline, 97<br />
Market research, 109<br />
Maternity leave, 92<br />
Mediated agreements, 35–6<br />
Melbourne Registry, 106<br />
Mental Health Support Pilot Project, 19–20<br />
N<br />
National Case Management Committee, 14, 162<br />
National Enquiry Centre (NEC), 5, 105<br />
National Ergonomic Assessment Project, 98<br />
National OH&S Committee, 99<br />
National Property Strategy, 104<br />
National Public Sector Management Program (NPSMP), 93<br />
National Support Office (NSO), 106<br />
Newcastle Registry, 105<br />
Non-salary benefits, 95<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 187
O<br />
Alphabetical Index Part 10<br />
Occupational health and safety (OH&S), 97<br />
Output structure, 32<br />
Outside participation, 16–17<br />
P<br />
Parental responsibility, significant judgments, 84<br />
Parramatta Registry, 105<br />
Pascoe, John, Chief Federal Magistrate, 20<br />
Payroll system, 91<br />
Pending Cases Inventory (PCI), 42<br />
Performance development plans, 91<br />
Performance Development System (PDS), 92<br />
Performance measurement, 31–2<br />
Performance pay, 96<br />
Planning, 15<br />
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), 14, 161<br />
Portfolio Budget Statement, 8, 16, 32<br />
Productivity<br />
gains, 95<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional development, 20<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Development Committee, 14, 162<br />
Projects, 17–20<br />
Property, significant judgments<br />
informal agreement post-separation, 72<br />
dismissal or permanent stay <strong>of</strong> application, 65<br />
Property adjustment, significant judgments<br />
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, application by, 85<br />
superannuation, 61, 63, 77<br />
Property Management Committee, 14, 162<br />
Public submissions, 163–4<br />
Purchasing, 103–4<br />
R<br />
Refurbishment program, 104<br />
Regional Coordinating Judges, 14, 21–3<br />
Registry<br />
combined, 4, 15<br />
Relocation, significant judgments<br />
international, 82<br />
interstate, 63<br />
188<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
Resolution output, 13, 32, 34–6<br />
Resources for outcomes, 171<br />
Retention, staff, 91, 92–3<br />
Risk management, 15<br />
Rules Committee, 14, 161<br />
S<br />
Security for costs, significant judgments, 67<br />
Self-represented litigants, 43–4<br />
appellants, 48, 52<br />
Self-represented Litigants Committee, 43<br />
Service Charter, 102<br />
Sexual abuse allegations, significant judgments, 69<br />
Shared parental responsibility, 3<br />
Special medical procedures, 13, 31<br />
Staff, 94–5<br />
health and wellbeing, 98<br />
turnover, 93<br />
Staff Development Committee, 92<br />
Standing Committees, 14<br />
Statistical Services Unit, 18<br />
Strategic Plan, 15<br />
Superannuation, significant judgments, 61, 63, 77<br />
Sydney Registry, 105<br />
T<br />
Part 10<br />
Alphabetical Index<br />
Townsville Registry, 105<br />
Training<br />
family violence, in, 17<br />
mental health, in, 19–20<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional development opportunities, 92<br />
Turned Up and Tuned In, 92<br />
U<br />
Unacceptable risk, significant judgments<br />
child sexual abuse, 69<br />
family violence, 75<br />
W<br />
Wadna Wadna Wodli, 7, 163<br />
Whole <strong>of</strong> Government Energy Report, 108<br />
Wollongong Registry, 100, 104<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006 189
Alphabetical Index Part 10<br />
Women’s Information Service, 17<br />
Work Choices legislation, 94<br />
Work Level Standards, 92<br />
Workforce planning, 92<br />
Workforce turnover, 93<br />
Workplace Diversity Plan, 100<br />
Workplace Harassment Contact Officers, 99<br />
Workplace Wellbeing Agreement, 98–9<br />
Workplace Wellbeing policies, 91<br />
190<br />
<strong>Family</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Australia Annual Report 2005–2006
3766 Design Direction