HUDA & HUDA

The case of *Huda & Huda* concerned parenting and property disputes between the applicant father, Mr Huda, and the respondent mother, Mrs Huda. The court was required to determine issues relating to the children's best interests, including allegations of harm and family violence, as well as property division, which involved allegations of sham transactions, deliberate non-disclosure of financial affairs by the husband, and the role of a court-appointed trustee and the Child Support Registrar.

The primary legal issues before the court were to determine the paramount consideration of the children's best interests under section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with a particular focus on the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, abuse, neglect, or family violence, as stipulated in section 60CC(2)(b). This required the court to assess the credibility of the father's serious allegations of sexual abuse and physical harm against the mother, and to consider the impact of these allegations on the parenting arrangements. Additionally, the court had to address the property division, including the standard of proof for alleged sham transactions and the consequences of the husband's deliberate failure to provide financial disclosure, which aimed to diminish the property pool.

The court found the father, Mr Huda, to be lacking in credibility, particularly in relation to serious allegations made about the mother, including claims of drug use and sexual abuse of the children, supported by photographs and video evidence. The court rejected these allegations, accepting the mother's evidence and inferring that the father made these claims without genuine belief, as evidenced by his proposed shared parenting arrangement. This assessment of the father's truthfulness was critical to the parenting orders and also impacted the property proceedings. The court applied the principles of *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* and *Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama* regarding the standard of proof for serious allegations, noting that section 140(2) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) reflects the common law position. The court found that the father's conduct was deliberately designed to diminish the property pool, and his lack of disclosure and truthfulness were significant factors in the overall determination.

The court's orders, reflecting the reasons for judgment, directed the parties, the Independent Children's Lawyer, and the court-appointed trustee to submit proposed final orders by specific dates. In the event of disagreement on the wording of the final orders, the matter was to be listed for a mention, with personal attendance required by the parties and their legal representatives. Leave was also granted to the Child Support Registrar and other named parties to provide draft orders if they wished.