Haykal and Krawiec (No 3)

In *Haykal and Krawiec (No 3)*, Murphy J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications by the father to discharge existing parenting orders and substitute alternative orders, and by the mother seeking dismissal of the father's application. The mother relied on the rule in *Rice v Asplund*, arguing that the father's application should not proceed to a hearing as there had been no material change in circumstances. The court also dealt with a separate property settlement matter where the husband sought to vary previous consent orders, and the wife sought the withdrawal of that application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there had been a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing of the father's application for new parenting orders, given that the orders sought were substantially the same as those previously considered. In relation to the property matter, the court was required to determine the disposition of the husband's application to vary consent orders.

Murphy J dismissed the father's application for parenting orders, finding no evidence of a material change in circumstances since the previous orders were made. The court applied the principle that a party seeking to vary existing parenting orders must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances to justify a re-litigation of the children's best interests. In the property matter, consent orders were made withdrawing the husband's application to vary the previous property settlement. The court also ordered the return of documents produced on subpoena and approved the publication of certain proceedings and reasons for judgment to the Legal Services Commission.