FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Hallett & Hallett [2025] FedCFamC2F 745
File number(s): DNC 348 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE LIVERIS Date of judgment: 2 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where interim consent orders are in place – application by the father to increase the time the child spends with him – insufficient change of circumstances to justify reconsideration of the consent orders in respect of time spent arrangements – where the parties are in dispute about the child’s enrolment in early learning – where the parties are in dispute about whether the child should travel interstate to visit the paternal grandmother – interim orders made for the child to be enrolled in early learning education – interim orders made permitting the child to travel interstate to spend time with the paternal grandmother
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – application by the wife to commence proceedings for spousal maintenance and an alteration of property interests outside of the statutory time period – application for a litigation funding order – exercise of the discretion to not grant leave – application for leave and associated orders dismissed
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117, 44(3), 44(4), 60A, 60B, 60CC(2), 60I, 62G, 69ZL, 72, 75(2), 79, Part VII Cases cited: Bustillo & Bustillo [2024] FedCFamC1F 556
Carswell & Tenson (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 848
Goode & Goode (2006) 36 Fam LR 422
Hardwick & Hardwick (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 216
Jacenko & Jacenko (1986) 11 Fam LR 341
Lester & Lester [2024] FedCFamC2F 1012
Licata & Buxton [2019] FCCA 3181
Lynch & Lynch [2023] FedCFamC1F 801
Vang & Chung (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 101
Waldmann & Paddack [2024] FedCFamC1A 100
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 108 Date of hearing: 30 April 2025 Place: Darwin Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Taylor Solicitor for the Applicant: Miltons Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lawrence Solicitor for the Respondent: Brisbane City Lawyers ORDERS
DNC 348 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR HALLETT
Applicant
AND: MS HALLETT
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LIVERIS
DATE OF ORDER:
2 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties will within 14 days of these orders do all such things and sign all such documents to enrol the child, X (born in 2020) (“child”), in the B Child Care at C Street, Town D, Northern Territory UNLESS the mother nominates, within 7 days of these orders, her preference for the child to attend the B Child Care at E Street, Suburb F, Northern Territory, in which case the parties will immediately do all such things and sign all such documents to enrol the child in that learning centre within 7 days of that nomination.
2.Each party by 4pm on 30 June 2025 advise the other in writing which school they would like the child to attend when she commences her preschool year in 2026, and make all reasonable efforts in good faith to reach…
Continue reading Hallett & Hallett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hallett & Hallett [2025] FedCFamC2F 745
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 745
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether there had been a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of the interim parenting orders concerning the time the child should spend with the father. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the child should be enrolled in a specific early learning centre and whether the child should be permitted to travel with the father to visit his grandmother. The court also had to consider the wife's application for spousal maintenance and property interests outside the statutory period and her application for a litigation funding order.
In delivering his reasons for judgment, Judge Liveris found that there had not been a sufficient change of circumstances to justify altering the time the child should spend with the father. Consequently, the court declined to make changes to the existing interim orders. The court did, however, order that the child be enrolled in the specified early learning centre unless the mother nominated a different one within the stipulated timeframe. The court also permitted the child to travel with the father to visit his grandmother, setting out specific travel arrangements and a Skype call between the child and her mother. The court dismissed the wife's application for spousal maintenance and property interests outside the statutory period, and the application for a litigation funding order was also dismissed.
The court made interim orders for the child's enrolment in the specified early learning centre and for the child to travel with the father to visit his grandmother. The wife's application for spousal maintenance and property interests outside the statutory period, and the application for a litigation funding order, were dismissed. Costs were reserved to the trial, and the matter was listed for a compliance hearing on 12 August 2025.
Orders
Orders of the court
DNC 348 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR HALLETT
Applicant
AND:
MS HALLETT
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LIVERIS
DATE OF ORDER:
2 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties will within 14 days of these orders do all such things and sign all such documents to enrol the child, X (born in 2020) (“child”), in the B Child Care at C Street, Town D, Northern Territory UNLESS the mother nominates, within 7 days of these orders, her preference for the child to attend the B Child Care at E Street, Suburb F, Northern Territory, in which case the parties will immediately do all such things and sign all such documents to enrol the child in that learning centre within 7 days of that nomination.
2. Each party by 4pm on 30 June 2025 advise the other in writing which school they would like the child to attend when she commences her preschool year in 2026, and make all reasonable efforts in good faith to reach agreement and enrol the child in the agreed school.
3. If agreement under order 2, cannot be reached in writing by 4pm on 31 July 2025, the parties will jointly engage dispute resolution and do all reasonable things to reach agreement on a school for the child in 2026 on or before 1 October 2025.
4. In order that the child immediately spend time with the paternal grandmother:
(a) Within 7 days the father nominate a flight from Darwin to Melbourne for the child to travel with him to Melbourne, and the mother will provide the child to the father at the information desk at Darwin airport 3 hours before the nominated flight.
(b) Within 7 days the father nominate a flight returning to Darwin 4 nights after the flight in order 4(a), and the father will provide the child to the mother at Darwin airport at the baggage carousels at the conclusion of the flight.
(c) At 6pm on the second night after the first flight, the mother will call the child by Skype and the father will do all things necessary to facilitate that call from the mother of up to 30 minutes as per the child’s wishes.
5. The Application in a Proceeding filed 12 March 2025 be otherwise dismissed.
6. The Application in a Proceeding filed 11 March 2025 by the Respondent be dismissed.
7. The listing on 12 August 2025 before Judge Bowrey be vacated.
8. The matter be listed for compliance hearing at 9.30 am (ACST) on 12 August 2025 before Judge Liveris.
9. Costs be reserved to the trial.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.