FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
FIRST INSTANCE
Abramsson & Abramsson (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 392
File number: BRC 5917 of 2022 Judgment of: CAREW J Date of judgment: 12 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Section 102NA – Where an order was made pursuant to the s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) in February 2024 – Where a final parenting order was made in December 2024 after a defended hearing – Where the parenting order was successfully appealed in May 2025 – Where the s 102NA order has arguably lapsed – Where there are significant and competing allegations of family violence – Where an order pursuant to s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) is made. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 102NA Cases cited: Hurley and Melton (No 2) (2020) 61 Fam LR 405
Lazer & Haines [2022] FedCFamC1F 35
Number of paragraphs: 13 Date of hearing: 12 June 2025 Place: Brisbane The Applicant: Litigant in person The Respondent: Litigant in person The Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid Queensland ORDER
BRC 5917 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR ABRAMSSON
Applicant
AND: MS ABRAMSSON
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
CAREW J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Act are to apply to the cross-examination of each of the parties in these proceedings.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
2.Paragraph 23(f) of the Order made 29 May 2025 be amended pursuant to the slip rule to remove reference to s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.Given that s 102NA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies, the Court has today advised the parties that:
(1)pursuant to those requirements, neither party may cross-examine the other party personally; and
(2)pursuant to those requirements, any cross-examination of either party may only be conducted by a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the other party; and
(3)they are able to apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme for the provision of a lawyer by completing an application form which will be provided to them by Legal Aid Queensland; and
(4)a copy of these Orders will be provided by the Court to Legal Aid Queensland, which administers the said Scheme in Queensland.
B.The Court respectfully requests that Legal Aid Queensland accord any Application submitted by the parties for the provision of a legal practitioner pursuant to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme significant priority given that the matter is listed for a final hearing for seven days commencing 28 July 2025.
ADDITIONAL NOTATIONS:
C.There is no Court by the name “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”. This Court was formerly known as the Family Court of Australia and is now known as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).
D.The design of the seal affixed to this…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Abramsson & Abramsson (No 4) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC1F 392
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with resolving the legal issues concerning the continued applicability of the section 102NA(1)(c)(iv) order, particularly in light of the successful appeal of the final parenting order and the ongoing allegations of family violence. The primary issue was whether the section 102NA order, which required the application of section 102NA(2) to the cross-examination of the parties, should remain in effect or be deemed to have lapsed following the appeal.
In its reasoning, the court considered the procedural history of the case and the context of the allegations of family violence. The court determined that the requirements of section 102NA(2) should continue to apply to the cross-examination of each party in the proceedings. Furthermore, the court amended the earlier order made on 29 May 2025, removing a reference to section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in light of the slip rule. The court concluded that the section 102NA order should remain in place to ensure that the integrity of the proceedings was maintained, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations of family violence.
The final orders of the court were that the requirements of section 102NA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should apply to the cross-examination of each party in the proceedings, and that paragraph 23(f) of the order made on 29 May 2025 be amended to remove reference to section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This decision ensures that the court's approach to the examination of the parties remains consistent with the serious allegations of family violence and the procedural history of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Act are to apply to the cross-examination of each of the parties in these proceedings.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
2. Paragraph 23(f) of the Order made 29 May 2025 be amended pursuant to the slip rule to remove reference to s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.