Felicio Law Firm

Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) are a key legal tool in NSW to protect individuals from domestic violence or the threat of such violence.

Increasingly domestic violence is understood to encompass a wide range of behaviours within a family relationship, from physical, emotional and financial abuse, to harassment, stalking and coercive control. An ADVO aims to provide immediate protection to victims by imposing restrictions on the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour.

This article provides an overview of ADVOs, including the legal grounds for obtaining one, what happens before the matter is dealt with in court, how to seek an ADVO and how to defend against one.

Understanding the legal grounds for obtaining an ADVO

To obtain an ADVO in NSW, an applicant must establish certain legal grounds, including:

• Fear of violence or harm: The applicant for an ADVO must have a reasonable fear of violence, threats, harassment, or intimidation from the alleged perpetrator. This fear must be based on actual or perceived actions, and it can extend to not only the victim but also any other person whom the victim believes is at risk.
• Domestic or family relationship: There must be a domestic or familial relationship between the applicant and the alleged perpetrator. This can include current or former spouses or de facto partners, family members, or people living together in a domestic setting.
• Acts of domestic violence: The applicant must provide evidence of specific acts of domestic violence, such as physical assaults, verbal abuse, stalking, or any other behaviour that causes fear or harm. These acts must be recent or ongoing.
• Protection and safety: The court will consider whether the ADVO is necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing of the applicant and any other person at risk.

Some of the actions a person is prevented from taking under an ADVO includes assaulting or threatening the protected person; stalking and intimidating; destroying or damaging property; going within a certain distance of the other person; attending the protected person’s house, or contacting them.

An ADVO lasts for 12 months from the date the order it was made unless the court specifies a different time period.

What happens before the matter is dealt with in court

The process begins with the victim (or someone on their behalf) filing an ADVO application with the local police station or the court registry. NSW Police will most commonly apply for an ADVO on the basis of a report of domestic violence, even where the alleged victim thinks that the order is unwarranted or unnecessary.

In cases of immediate danger, the court may grant interim orders to provide protection right away to the applicant. These orders can be issued without the alleged perpetrator being present or informed. The police are responsible for serving the ADVO application and any interim orders to the alleged perpetrator. This serves as notice of the legal proceedings.

A person the subject of an ADVO should consult a legal professional with experience in domestic violence matters as soon as possible after becoming aware of the order to discuss the steps they should take to possibly have the order dropped.

The matter will typically be listed for a first court appearance where both parties are required to attend. During this appearance, the court may make further orders, including extending interim orders or setting a hearing date. Both parties will have an opportunity to gather evidence to support their case. This may include witness statements, photographs, text messages, or medical reports.

In some cases, the court may suggest mediation or dispute resolution services to attempt to resolve the matter without a full hearing.

The person who is the subject of the ADVO can defend the application at the first hearing by attempting to prove, on the balance of probabilities, one of the following to the court:

• that the complainant or protected person does not fear the defendant;
• the complainant does not have reasonable grounds to fear a personal violence offence from the defendant;
• it is inappropriate for the ADVO to be made.

A person the subject of an ADVO may also consent to it without admissions, meaning they do not agree with the grounds on which the order was granted. A legal representative with experience in this area may then be able to negotiate with police and/or the other party to amend the conditions of the order. Legal advice is highly advisable before agreeing to an ADVO in this manner as it has the potential to affect current family law proceedings, particularly in relation to parental rights.

A person subject to an ADVO may also file a cross-application against the protected person, claiming that they fear the other person and have reasonable grounds to do so. In the case of this type of application, the court will generally hear both applications at the same time.

An ADVO may be appealed within 28 days of a final order being made by the court. It’s possible the ADVO may be ‘stayed’ – or has no effect, in other words – once the appeal is filed and until it is decided.

What factors influence acceptance of the application?

The chances of being granted an ADVO by the court in NSW depends on several factors, including:

• The strength and reliability of the evidence – witness statements, photos, text messages, and medical reports can all play a significant role in supporting the application.
• Credibility of both parties – in considering an ADVO application, the court will assess the consistency of the statements and any evidence presented by both parties.
• Testimony of witnesses – first-hand accounts of the alleged domestic violence may strengthen the applicant’s case.
• Conduct and past incidents – the court may consider any past examples of domestic violence and the alleged perpetrator’s conduct in determining whether an ADVO is warranted.

Other important things to consider

Both parties have the right to legal representation – the presence of a solicitor with experience in ADVO proceedings can be essential to the application being granted.

In some cases, mediation may lead to a resolution that does not require a full ADVO hearing but this depends on the willingness of both parties to engage in the process. In cases where there has been long-term or repeated instances of serious domestic violence, mediation is unlikely to be a suitable suggestion.

The court’s primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of the victim and any other person or persons at risk. If the court determines that an ADVO is necessary to provide protection, it will issue the order, outlining the conditions and restrictions imposed on the alleged perpetrator.

Our expert team can help

Family law matters, including how to approach domestic violence matters, are one of our specialities at Felicio Law Firm. We can advise on ADVO whether you need urgent protection from the violence of a partner or family members, or you are the subject of an ADVO you believe is unwarranted or unnecessary. Call our professional team today for more details on anything raised in this post.

They may have been made famous by celebrity relationship break-ups but that should not diminish the fact pre-nuptial agreements – or binding financial agreements as they are known in Australia – can be a wise choice for both parties to a relationship to protect themselves in the sad event the union ends.

Such agreements, which popular culture likes to refer to as ‘pre-nups’, are commonly associated with marriage and divorce but they are also becoming more important for de facto relationships. A binding financial agreement (BFA) between de facto partners can provide both parties peace of mind about their respective financial assets if the relationship comes to an end.

In recent years the status of de facto relationships – including same sex ones – under Australia’s family laws is almost identical to that of marriage. That is in recognition of society’s maturity in understanding de facto relationships are not only more common, but are just as loving and significant as the act of marriage. Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 deals with financial agreements made by couples in a de facto relationship.

These agreements can be made before, during or even after a relationship breaks down. In this article, we’ll look at why a BFA can be important in clarifying the financial and other commitments of de facto couples if the relationship comes to an end.

What does a binding financial agreement cover?

A BFA primarily protects each party’s financial position after a relationship breakdown or separation. A financial agreement can cover:

• The maintenance of one or both people in the relationship;
• how assets and money from the relationship are divided;
• other issues.

If written co-operatively between both parties to the relationship, these agreements can be flexible enough to deal with a range of issues that arise when a couple separates.

Particularly where there are children from the relationship, the existence of an agreement can prevent adversarial court proceedings which can create further antagonism or conflict between the parents and provide security for how the children will be provided for into the future. Similarly, a BFA can deal with issues such as who will look after a pet or pets acquired during the relationship in the event of a break-up.

The agreement can also address future property that one half of the couple may expect, such as an inheritance from a parent or other relative, ensuring it does not become part of a property settlement order.

A BFA can also cover the often difficult issue of spousal maintenance after the relationship ends, allowing the parties to ‘contract out’ the right to seek support from each other. This issue arises where one party to the relationship – the party who is not working and typically in the role of ‘homemaker’ – has a need of ongoing financial support and the other party (the ‘breadwinner’, usually) has the ability to pay support. The agreement can deal with this issue provided one party was not on an income-tested pension at the time it came into effect.

The ‘binding’ part of financial agreements in de facto relationships

For financial agreements in de facto relationships to be ‘binding’, that is, legally enforceable, a number of steps must be followed in making one.

• The agreement must be signed by all parties;
• each party to the agreement must have received independent legal advice about both the advantages and disadvantages to their rights of the BFA;
• each party can provide a statement from a legal practitioner that such advice was given, either before or after the making of the agreement;
• a copy of the statement from the lawyer is also provided to the other party; and
• the agreement has not been terminated or set aside by a court.

Once signed, BFAs can only be cancelled or changed if there is evidence of fraud or dishonesty in its making; the agreement is impractical to put into effect; there is a significant change in the care and welfare of the children from the relationship, or; one party acted in an unconscionable way in the making of the BFA.

How specialist legal advice can help

As detailed above, a person in a de facto relationship who wishes to make a financial agreement with their partner to give them both certainty about what happens if they break up first needs independent legal advice.

Consulting with experienced family lawyers such as Felicio Law Firm can help you clarify the issues involved to ensure your rights and interests are reflected in any BFA entered into. Because these agreements become legally enforceable, it’s important to get the terms of the agreement right at the outset. Contact us at our central cost family lawyers today for an initial obligation-free consultation.

‘Let’s get a dog!’

It’s a commonly heard exclamation in a relationship between two people, a sign of commitment to each other. Sometimes, getting a ‘fur baby’ is almost considered a trial run for having children.

But what happens to the much-loved dog, cat or budgie if the relationship unexpectedly breaks down? Under Australia’s Family Law Act, a pet is considered an item of property that cannot be shared in the way children from the relationship are, spending time with each parent.

For that reason, pets will be considered much as other items of property such as cars are in any decision by a court about where the animal will live – unless the matter is dealt with a binding agreement between the couple.

Dealing with pets in a binding financial agreement

A binding financial agreement (BFA) between a couple protects each party’s financial position after a relationship breakdown or separation but can also deal with what happens to pets. These agreements can be made before, during or even after a relationship breaks down.

Rather than have a family law court decide where the pet will live, a BFA can provide mutually agreed details on a sharing arrangement after separation, as well how costs of grooming, training, vet bills and insurance, for example, will be met.

By discussing these issues to include in an agreement, both parties can answer difficult questions about whether the pet should live with one half of the couple, be cared for jointly or not at all (rehomed, for example).

In order for this type of agreement to be ‘binding’, that is, legally enforceable between the parties, a number of steps must be followed in making one:

• The agreement must be signed by all parties;
• each party to the agreement must have received independent legal advice about both the advantages and disadvantages on their rights of the BFA;
• each party can provide a statement from a legal practitioner that such advice was given, either before or after the making of the agreement;
• a copy of the statement from the lawyer is also provided to the other party; and
• the agreement has not been terminated or set aside by a court.

What happens if you can’t agree?

There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ rule when it comes to how courts will deal with pets in relationship break-ups. A number of factors need to be considered in determining where the pet should live, including who purchased the animal, whose name it is registered in and who pays insurance and other costs for it; and who primarily cares for it (feeding, grooming, etc).

If there are children from the union, their relationship with the pet may also be relevant as to where it should live in the event of the relationship ending. Ongoing financial commitments for the animal as well as the practicality of owning a pet in new living arrangements are other factors to consider.

Speak with expert family lawyers

The requirement to seek legal advice before entering a BFA means a person should consult with an experienced Central Cost Erina family lawyer so that they are clear about how to protect their rights and interests.

Issues that can be addressed in a BFA, including financial support of one half of the ex-couple by the other and how property – including pets – is dealt with in the agreement, can be clarified in a chat with one of the expert family lawyers at Felicio Law Firm.

Call us for an initial meeting today if you want to protect your pets in a relationship split.

One of the most challenging times during a family break-up is always the decision about where a child or children from the relationship will live and how much time they will spend with each parent under the new arrangements.

In deciding this difficult but crucial question, the court is guided by the ‘best interests of the child as set out in the Family Law Act 1975. One of the primary considerations for determining a child’s best interests is ‘the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.

How the court deals with the consideration has been explored in numerous Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) cases, including one case in which Felicio Law Firm acted in: Jasper & Lilley in 2018.

A look at the facts, in this case, is illustrative of some of the difficult issues to resolve when trying to work out arrangements for the raising of a child from a broken relationship.

The details of the case

Felicio Law Firm acted for the father in this case, which involved a mother who suffered from mental illness and seeking additional time with her seven-year-old daughter to stay overnight with her in the face of objections from the father, who the child lived with.

The mother and father had separated while the child was still an infant and the girl at first lived with the mother. But after a year, the mother was admitted to a mental health facility and the father sought an order that the child lives with him, which she had done ever since.

The mother would spend some time with her daughter under the supervision of her parents. She was admitted to a hospital on a number of separate days during this period until, in early 2018, the mother applied for overnight time with her daughter. The orders sought included the mother having the child with her each Saturday from 9 am to 5 pm for a period of six weeks and thereafter, every second weekend from 5 pm on Friday until 5 pm on Sunday. The mother also sought extended periods of time during school holiday periods.

The father sought for this application to be dismissed. While there was no dispute that it was important for the child to maintain a strong relationship with her mother, the father was concerned about how the child could be kept safe in the event of the mother experiencing another mental health episode.

How the case was resolved

The decision in the Family Law Court agreed with the father that the time sought by the mother was too extensive, but disagreed with him that the child spending four hours supervised per fortnight with the mother was sufficient time.

‘I am confident that the supervision by the mother’s parents, or other adults acceptable to the father, is sufficient to ensure the child’s safety and welfare during the periods which she spends with her mother,’ the judge stated.

The order was that the child spends time with her mother each Saturday from 9 am to 5 pm for a period of six weeks and, commencing on the seventh week, each alternate weekend from 9 am on Saturday until 5 pm on Sunday.

The importance of specialist legal advice

Under section 65AA of the Family Law Act, the best interests of the child are paramount when the court makes a parenting order. Under the Act’s presumption of equal shared responsibility, the court must consider whether those interests are best met by the child spending equal time, or ‘substantial and significant time with each parent.

A parent’s mental health, as well as other factors such as family violence, become relevant factors in the court’s consideration of whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend periods of time with a parent, including overnight stays as in Jasper and Lilley.

If anything in this article raises issues of concern, contact Central Coast family lawyers today for a compassionate hearing of your issue. We have many years of experience in difficult and complex family law matters. 

Lilley & Jasper was a 2019 case heard in the Family Court of Australia in which we successfully acted for a father in a custody and parenting matter. This article will provide a summary of the facts and outcomes of the case.

Facts

Child B was born in 2011 to Mr Lilley and Ms Jasper. Ms Jasper suffered from a postpartum psychiatric illness and was admitted to the hospital following B’s birth. In 2013, B was diagnosed with a medical condition.

Mr Lilley and Ms Jasper separated in 2013, when B was two years old, following which Mr Lilley commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Over the next few years, Ms Jasper continued to suffer from mental illness and was admitted to the hospital multiple times. From May 2014 onwards, B lived with her father. Mr Lilley remarried, and he and his present wife had two children.

Between 2014-2018, contact between B and her mother was initially supervised at a contact centre. By February 2018, the mother’s time with B was supervised by the maternal grandmother or grandfather on alternate Saturdays and, after six weeks, alternate weekends.

In July 2018, Mr Lilley and Ms Jasper reached an agreement that B would live with the father and spend alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday evening with the mother.

Application for Adjournment

Ms Jasper applied for the case to be adjourned because she had dispensed with her legal representatives.

In rejecting this application, Justice Rees referenced the fact that it was in the child’s interest for the drawn out proceedings to be concluded, and for there to be certainty and stability in her life. Her Honour also noted that Ms Jasper had not suggested that she was unable to conduct the proceedings herself. Due to these factors, and the fact that three days of hearing time had been allocated to this matter and there was not sufficient time to bring on another matter to avoid those days being wasted, Justice Rees denied the application for adjournment.

The Hearing

Mr Lilley and Ms Jasper reached an agreement on the first day of the hearing that B would continue to live with her father and that she would spend alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday evening with her mother. They also agreed to phase out strict supervision by the maternal grandparents, and equally shared parental responsibilities.

On the second day of the hearing, both parents were cross-examined.

On the third day of the hearing, four issues were left to be considered:

• Whether Mr Lilley should have sole parental responsibility regarding B’s medical treatment
• Whether Ms Jasper’s weekend time with B should be extended to from 5 pm Sunday to 8 pm Sunday when B is 12 years old
• Whether Sunday afternoon changeover should take place at a halfway point
• Overseas and interstate travel

Parental Responsibility

Mr Lilley sought sole parental responsibility regarding B’s medical treatment.

Justice Rees ruled that both parents have B’s welfare at heart and that parental responsibility regarding B’s medical treatment should be shared. It was ordered that Ms Jasper be able to attend appointments with specialists and receive copies of all specialist reports that Mr Lilley may take B to.

Weekend Time

Ms Jasper proposed that when B turns 12, she stay with her until 8 pm on Sundays instead of the current 5 pm. This would enable Ms Jasper to have dinner with B on Sundays. Justice Rees rejected the father’s argument that B goes to bed at 7 pm and an 8 pm drop-off is too late, stating that by the time she is 12, her bedtime will no doubt be later. Further, as B would have had dinner by the time she got back to her father’s at 8 pm, Her Honour said that 8 pm would not be too late for her to rest before school the next day, and found in favour of Ms Jasper’s proposal.

Sunday Afternoon Changeover

The parents lived one hour and 15 minutes from each other. Ms Jasper proposed that the changeover should take place halfway between the two homes. Mr Lilley opposed this, as he worked rotating shifts and could not be available every Sunday to pick up B from the halfway point by 5 pm.

As the parties had experienced difficulties in the past when they attempted changeovers in accordance with the father’s roster, Justice Rees ruled that there was no alternative but for Ms Jasper to return B to Mr Lilley’s home

Overseas and Interstate Travel

Ms Jasper sought to restrain B’s father from travelling overseas with B until she is 10 years old, as she needed time to settle into the new parenting arrangements. Justice Rees rejected this claim, as the weekend arrangements had been in place since 2018 and thus no adjustment was necessary.

Ms Jasper also asked that, in the event that the father travels with B within Australia, he should provide her with an itinerary and contact details due to a fear he may travel with B to Queensland and not return. Justice Rees ruled that this claim had no basis in logic, and imposed no such requirement.

Family law matters can be stressful and upsetting. At Felicio Law Firm, we provide a compassionate and practical legal approach and will assist you with any challenges you may face with your family law matter. 

Contact the central coast family lawyers, if you require specialised legal advice and representation.

A significant change in Australia’s family law system occurred in September 2021 when the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court of Australia were joined to become the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA).

The new structure was introduced by the Federal government to try and reduce the bottlenecks in the family law process, resolving property and parenting disputes in a quicker, more efficient manner and encouraging dispute resolution before the need for a court trial at every opportunity.

To this end, a new case management pathway and harmonised procedural rules have been introduced as of September 2021, some of which we provide more detail on in this post about how the new court will handle property disputes between couples whose relationship has come to an end.

As in parenting matters, in an ideal world, a separating married or de facto couple save time, money and stress by coming to their own agreement on dividing property and debts from the relationship. When they can’t agree, the Court is called on to resolve the issue.

Within the new Court structure, the key change in property disputes is around disclosure of financial details between the parties prior to reaching the trial stage.

How the new case management pathway applies to property disputes

Applying to the Court for financial orders on the division of property and payment of spouse or de facto partner maintenance can occur 12 months after a divorce is finalised for married couples and within two years of the breakdown of a de facto relationship.

Under the new Court’s revised rules, the parties will be asked at their first court appearance whether they have undertaken a number of ‘genuine steps’, including undertaking dispute resolution and complying with ‘pre-action procedures’.

Further detail on these steps in applying for property orders includes:

• The requirement that all ‘pre-action procedures’ are exhausted prior to a party filing proceedings. These procedures include the applicant for the orders providing a written notice of intention to the other party to start a proceeding. The respondent is then required to respond.
• Once the parties are aware of the dispute, they must exchange relevant disclosure documents as soon as possible. This is a significant, time-saving change to the former procedure in the Federal Circuit Court, where the duty of disclosure did not start until after the parties had made a first appearance in Court.
• The parties’ legal representatives will be expected to promptly and thoroughly comply with pre-action procedures. The Court can make an order for legal costs against one party where a lawyer fails to comply with these procedures.

In property/financial cases, disclosure before any court proceeding includes each party providing to the other:

• a schedule of assets, income and liabilities;
• a list of documents in each parties` possession or control that are relevant to the dispute, such as tax returns, bank statements, property or motor vehicle valuation appraisals, inheritance or gift details, and company and trust financial statements; and
• a copy of any document required by the other party.

The other key requirement as part of case management is that the parties undertake at least one form of dispute resolution, such as mediation, before appearing in court.

This stage of the process may occur through private mediation, a conciliation conference or arbitration in property settlement cases.

The requirement for dispute resolution is not new in either property or parenting matters but will be more strictly enforced in the new Court structure, signified by the need for a party filing an application to start a proceeding, or a response to the application, to file a ‘Genuine Steps Certificate’.

The certificate outlines each party’s compliance with pre-action procedures and confirms their participation in dispute resolution.

Other changes in the new structure

People bringing a property dispute to the new FCFCOA will find that their initial interaction with the court will more often be with registrars and senior registrars.

The change is designed to help judges within the court more quickly and efficiently resolve matters that require priority.

On the announcement of the new court, it was suggested that after an application for orders the first court event will occur within 6-8 weeks, with mediation or dispute resolution to take place within six months of filing.

If the matter proceeds to trial, the aim is for it to proceed within 12 months of the initial application.

Is legal advice necessary?

When applying to the court for property orders – or for consent orders where the parties are asking the court to formalise a property agreement made between them – the parties do not necessarily need to be represented by a lawyer.

But family law is a complex area, particularly property matters where the Court considers an extensive range of factors before determining whether it should alter the division of property between the ex-couple. Valuations of property, the place of non-financial contributions to the relationship and the weight to be given to contributions as a homemaker or parent are all important aspects that benefit from the advice of a specialist family lawyer.

At Felicio Law Firm we have many years of experience in family law matters and can help you understand your rights and responsibilities, whether you wish to initiate an application for property orders, or are responding to one.

We will also help explain the new arrangements under the new Federal Circuit and Family Law Court and what they mean for an application for property settlement.

Contact us Central Coast family lawyers today.

A couple seeking a property settlement once their relationship breaks down to divide up the assets accrued during their time together will often have the matter complicated by the existence of a third party interest.

The third-party could be a close family member or another relative, a business partner of one half of the couple, a creditor of one party, or someone else who has a property interest or financial relationship with one or both parties.

A common example is a parent who lends money to an adult child to help their son or daughter buy a house with their partner.

Changes made to Australia’s Family Law Act (‘the Act’) in 2004 give those courts charged with interpreting the Act wide-ranging powers in relation to third party interests in property settlements.

Specifically, under Part VIIIAA of the Act, the court may alter the rights, liabilities and property interests of third parties in relation to the couple’s property settlement proceedings, including for former de facto couples.

This means the court may issue orders which direct a third party to do something in relation to the property of a party to the marriage or, alter the rights, liabilities or property interests of a third party in relation to that marriage.

The court may order, for example, a creditor of one party to a marriage to substitute the other party, or both parties to the marriage for that party in relation to a debt. It could also order a company to register a transfer of shares from one party to the marriage to the other party.

The question arises as to who is responsible for the costs of legal action involving a third party, which we’ll address in this post.

How are third parties joined to property settlement proceedings?

A party to a property settlement proceeding after a relationship break-up can join a third party to the proceeding in their Initiating Application to the court.

A third party can also ask to be joined to the proceedings. This will usually happen if there is a significant asset legally owned by one half of the ex-couple in the proceedings that the third party considers to be theirs, or where the third party’s rights will be affected by the orders being sought by one of the parties to the property settlement.

A third party may apply to the court to strike out the application joining them to proceedings. By joining as a party, the third party is subject to disclosure obligations, legal costs and potentially becoming the reluctant subject of a court order.

The third-party can ask the court to exercise its discretion not to make orders affecting its rights.

It should be noted that a third party can still be asked to disclose financial information in the property proceedings under a subpoena, even if they do not join as a party to the legal action. If one spouse had a role with a third party entity, for example, documents relevant to that financial asset or property may be relevant under the usual disclosure obligations in the proceedings.

The issue of costs

Before joining a third party to property settlement proceedings, careful consideration should be given to the legal costs the third party is likely to incur.

A cost-benefit exercise needs to be conducted to work out whether the possible financial benefit to the person who joins the third party is significantly greater than the third party’s potential legal costs.

Under section 117 of the Act, costs in property settlement proceedings state that ‘each party to the proceedings under the Act shall bear his or her own costs’.

Other clauses in that section, however, allow the court to make other costs orders for one party to pay the other’s legal costs. The court takes into account the financial circumstances of each of the parties, the conduct of the parties, and whether the proceedings were necessary because one party failed to observe earlier court orders, among other reasons.

Importantly for this topic, section 117 of the Act does not make express distinction between the parties to the proceedings, such as a former husband and wife, and a third party. This means a third party can make an application to the court for its legal costs to be covered by a party or parties to the proceedings.

It should be remembered that costs order are not designed to be punitive but are simply made to compensate a party for the costs incurred in becoming part of the litigation.

Nevertheless, depending on the extent of the third party’s involvement in the property settlement proceedings, that party could obtain an oppressive order against the applicant to pay legal costs and expenses if the latter is unsuccessful after including the third party.

In this situation, if the court decides the third party did not need to be joined to the proceedings, the party who did so may have to pay the third party from their share of the asset pool.

Speak with experienced family lawyers

The decision to join third parties in property settlement proceedings between ex-spouses is one that needs careful consideration and the advice of expert Erina family lawyers.

Felicio Law Firm counts on many years’ experience advising parties to family law proceedings, whether they are a primary partner such as a husband or wife, or a third party.

We will help you decide on the wisdom of third party participation in property proceedings so you are aware of both the benefits and the risks.

If anything raised in this post applies to your situation, call us Erina & Central Coast Family Lawyers for an initial discussion of your case today.