*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are still using Legal Online, the links can be found in the LOLA PDF at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Family Law Review<\/em> (Volume 3 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n The High Court and family law: Two recent excursions <\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Hon Justice Paul Brereton AM RFD<\/p>\n In this article, two recent adventures of the High Court of Australia in the field of family law are considered \u00e2\u20ac\u201c one in a financial matter, namely Kennon v Spry<\/em>, in which the majority decision holding that assets of a discretionary family trust could be counted as property of the parties to the marriage, has become the subject of considerable, but the author will suggest unwarranted, controversy; and the other in a children\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s matter, namely Bookhurst v Bookhurst<\/em>, in which the refusal of special leave has left open a significant debate as to how the views of children are to be considered.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Family property law and the three fundamental propositions in Stanford v Stanford <\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Patrick Parkinson AM<\/p>\n This article considers the implications of the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision in Stanford v Stanford<\/em>. The court indicated that s 79(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 <\/em>(Cth) is in effect a statutory condition for the exercise of the power to alter property rights and that it should not be conflated with the considerations under s 79(4). The article suggests ways in which the terms \u00e2\u20ac\u0153just\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153equitable\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d can be construed separately from the s 79(4) and s 75(2) factors; the order in which matters need to be considered; the future of the four steps; the implications of having to determine legal and equitable title as a first step; whether it is sufficient to satisfy s 79(2) that both parties seek orders altering property rights; the potential for greater use of equitable doctrines in family property law; and other issues.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS<\/a><\/p>\n CHILD SUPPORT<\/a><\/p>\n FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION<\/a><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Geoffrey Monahan FM (Ed)<\/em>, Michelle Fernando<\/em>, Olivia Rundle<\/em><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: LOLA – Fam L Rev Vol 3 Pt 2 Contents<\/a> or here: WAU – Fam L Rev Vol 3 Pt 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n