Nordberg & Nordberg (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 187
•7 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Nordberg & Nordberg (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 187
File number(s): NCC 1234 of 2023 Judgment of: SMITH J Date of judgment: 7 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Anti-suit injunction sought by husband in respect of enforcement of maintenance orders made by the Family Court of Country B – no engagement or appearance by husband for extended period – undefended hearing – no basis for anti-suit injunction – no positive enforcement orders now sought by wife – Orders dismissing the Husband’s Initiating Application – no order as to costs sought Legislation: Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), Pt 9, s 152
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt XI, s 102NA
Cases cited: Nordberg & Nordberg [2023] FedCFamC1F 1019 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 18 Date of hearing: 7 March 2025 Place: Newcastle For the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Flanigan Solicitor for the Respondent: Ann Legal ORDERS
NCC 1234 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR NORDBERG
Applicant
AND: MS NORDBERG
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Initiating Application filed 27 April 2023 be dismissed.
2.There be no order as to costs.
3.The matter be removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation and all future listing dates be vacated.
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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nordberg & Nordberg has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SMITH J:
These proceedings come before me today for final hearing in respect of limited issues relating to spousal and/or child maintenance orders made in the Family Court of Country B and their enforcement. The proceedings are between the applicant husband, Mr Nordberg, and the respondent wife, Ms Nordberg.
I note that the parenting proceedings between the parties, which were the first proceedings between the parties in this court and in which the husband/father as applicant invoked the jurisdiction of this court in relation to the parties' children, was resolved at a final hearing before me in circumstances where I bifurcated the matters and heard parenting first.
In relation to the property proceedings, which were joined to the parenting proceedings, I refer to my reasons for judgment dated 29 November 2023, Nordberg & Nordberg [2023] FedCFamC1F 1019, in which I dismiss the husband's interim application for an anti-suit injunction against the wife from maintaining the then extant spousal and child maintenance proceedings as part of the property proceedings, which were then running in the Country B Family Court. This decision should be read together with that decision, as that decision sets out the relevant background and arguments.
After that interim decision, the Country B proceedings continued and were heard to finality by the Country B Family Court over a span of nine days commencing early 2022 concluding early 2024.
At the conclusion of those proceedings, the Country B Family Court rescinded any previous interim orders made by that Court and instead made the following orders in regard to child maintenance:
5.The Defendant is to make payment of the sum of A$3,000.00 per month for maintenance of the said 2 children being at A$1,500 per month per child until each child reaches the age of 21 years or upon completion of each child’s first tertiary education or equivalent at an Australian university or institution, whichever is the latter. Payment to take effect from 1st June 2024 and thereafter on the 1st day of each month into an account to be designated by the Plaintiff.
6.The Defendant shall also pay for 68% of the said 2 children’s education and education related expenses including technology items required for school purposes and tuition expenses which are currently for Maths only at A$240 per month per child, on a reimbursement basis. Payment to be made within 7 days of the production of receipts for such expenses by the Plaintiff. Provided always that the Defendant’s prior consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, must be obtained for any other additional tuition classes for the said 2 children before he shall be liable for payment of 68% of the same.
7.The Defendant shall further pay for 68% of the said 2 children’s medical (including hospitalisation) and dental expenses also on a reimbursement basis. Payment to be made within 7 days of the production of receipts for such expenses by the Plaintiff. Provided always that if private medical or dental treatment is required for either or both of the said 2 children, then the Defendant’s prior consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, must be obtained and he shall thereby also be liable for 68% of these expenses.
Additionally, an order was made that the husband be liable for 68 per cent of the wife's moving costs from Country B to Australia in the sum of $25,000. The wife gives evidence that the husband has failed to comply with those orders.
UNDEFENDED HEARING
The matter is before me on a final basis, noting that the husband has not participated for a significant period of time and that the wife, who was unrepresented, joined issue in her response filed 5 July 2023 seeking positive orders in relation to the manner in which the orders of the Country B Family Court should be dealt with, seeking "reciprocation" by this court, together with other ancillary orders.
Orders were made on 4 July 2024 assigning trial directions to the matter and listing the matter for mention on 2 October 2024. Mr Nordberg was notified by email of those orders. He did not appear on 2 October 2024. He has not appeared subsequently. I am satisfied he is aware that the proceedings remain on foot and that he was made aware of mentions he has not attended, and that if he wished to, he could have made himself aware through the portal of the fact that the matter was listed for hearing.
He has not appeared today; the matter being called outside court on three occasions. It is clear Mr Nordberg has, effectively, abandoned these proceedings. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis.
I note that the husband's Initiating Application filed 27 April 2023 included orders which would constitute anti-suit injunctions, in respect, potentially, of enforcement of the Country B orders:
1. That orders be made ex parte where procedural efficiency can be achieved.
2.That the Respondent be restrained by Anti-Suit Injunction, or as the Court determines, from participating, continuing or commencing proceedings in the [Country B Family Court] and specifically […] between the Applicant and Respondent; [Mr Nordberg] and [Ms Nordberg], pertaining to child support and/or maintenance that is in conflict with the valid and current child support assessment under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Family Law Act 1975.
3.That the current child assessment dated from 14 March 2022 be registered and be enforced in Australia to avoid dual liabilities, since both parties are residents of Australia. Any registered overseas maintenance liability will cease to have effect under CSA Act - Sect 152(2).
4.That the Registrar certify that the Applicant has been assessed by the Department of Human Service of the Australian Government and has complied with child support payment requirements as part of the assessment since 14 March 2022 to date.
There is an issue as to whether that Application truly remains on foot or has been withdrawn. I am proceeding on the basis that it is on foot.
That would also leave the wife's response. The wife appeared with counsel today and filed written submissions (MFI 1), in effect, submitting, I find correctly, that there is no basis for an anti-suit injunction, and I refer to what I said in my interim decision. There was no proper basis for an interim anti-suit injunction and there is no proper basis for a final anti-suit injunction or injunction against the reliance in Australia upon those orders.
Further, the wife says that she does not seek now any positive orders, but will rely upon section 152 subsection (2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (“Child Support (Assessment) Act)”), noting that she apparently has been informed, she says, at paragraph 44 of her affidavit, that Services Australia intends to make collection of those amounts.
In these circumstances, the wife only seeks the formal dismissal of the husband's initiating application.
In circumstances where the husband has not appeared for an extended period of time and has apparently abandoned his Application, where it is clear he is aware that the matter is on foot and was going to be heard, where email correspondence, I am informed, has been sent to him notifying him so that he could have appeared, where there is clearly no legal basis for the anti‑suit injunction or other orders he seeks in his Initiating Application, and where the only orders the wife now seeks are that the husband’s application be dismissed, it is clear that that is the appropriate order and the husband’s Initiating Application filed 27 April 2023 is dismissed.
The wife makes no application for costs. I note she is represented on a 102NA basis, where I made the order given the allegations of family violence between the parties, and having watched them at a variety of interim mentions, it was clear to me it would have been entirely inappropriate for them to cross-examine each other, and in particular, entirely inappropriate for the wife to be cross-examined by the husband.
No cost order is made in circumstances where, with no criticism of the self-represented wife, it may be that the matter has been prolonged, because of her misunderstanding of the operation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act.
The matter should be removed from the list.
I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith. Associate:
Dated: 21 March 2025
0