Member
In each issue of Brief we highlight a small selection of the exclusive special offers and discounts our members receive on a variety of goods and services. For the full listing of member privileges head to our website : lawsocietywa.asn.au/member-privileges/
Health & Wellness
Next Gen Health & Fitness Clubs, Kings Park provides a unique health experience and sense of wellbeing. It is the ultimate club experience that suits a busy work life and caters for whatever level of fitness you enjoy. Next Gen Kings Park has curated a special Premium Corporate offer for Law Society members which provides club access and premium benefits, including: - Complimentary towel upon entry - A complimentary 30 minute personal training session when you join - Discounts on special onsite classes Receive two weeks FREE if you join in the month of December. View the offer
Privileges
Personal 20% discount THE ICONIC is Australia and New Zealand’s leading online retailer. Your destination for fashion, sport, beauty, home and kids. Members of the Law Society receive a 20% discount on selected full priced items on THE ICONIC, with a minimum spend of $110. Visit the members’ only privileges page (password protected) to view the discount code and conditions. Shop online: www.theiconic.com.au
*Conditions apply to some offers. For the full list of member privileges please check our website.
upon parental autonomy by the appealed orders … (…) [39] The Full Court … recognised how the circumstances which are peculiar to a specific case might justify judicial interference with the parental responsibility vested in parents either by law or former court order. … [T]he primary judge’s interference with the allocation of parental responsibility was warranted because both parents desired it to resolve their impasse so the children’s welfare could be clearly advanced. Both parents sought an order interfering with their existing equal shared parental responsibility … [40] The application of the general rule of which the Full Court spoke in VR & RR (at [29]) does not impugn the primary judge’s decision here … because any parental responsibility with which a parent is seized only exists so long as no contrary court order is made. The Act expressly envisages that parental responsibility can be vested in adults other than the child’s parents (ss 61D(1), 64B(2), 64C, 65C, 65G(1A) and 65P) and it is now well established that there is no presumption in favour of parents over non-parents in the determination of proper orders to resolve parenting disputes … (…) [43] Since the primary judge appreciated the gravamen of the decision … and nevertheless decided to invest Mr B with the discrete portion of parental
responsibility which was in dispute, the father’s complaint under this ground of appeal was all but exhausted because he was unable to contend the law necessarily precluded his Honour from giving the confined aspect of parental responsibility to Mr B … ( … )”
The Full Court said (from [26]):
The father’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
(…)
Property – Section 90SN – Sale of real properties for less than anticipated – No miscarriage of justice or impracticability In Demeny & Ogden [2021] FedCFamC1A 21 (27 September 2021) Strickland, Ainslie-Wallace and Aldridge JJ considered consent orders that required the sale of four properties to discharge loans, the balance to be divided equally between the parties. The properties sold for unexpected amounts, which resulted in a property which the husband was to otherwise retain remaining encumbered. At first instance, Mr Ogden sought a variation to achieve an equal division. Judge Kari varied the original orders to reduce the amount payable to Ms Demeny on the ground that the orders were impracticable and that the orders had not achieved the intended division of property, such that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Ms Demeny appealed, arguing that any shortfall in repayments was to be borne by Mr Odgen.
“This case is an example of the difficulties that arise when orders require property to be sold and where the orders divide the proceeds not by way of percentage entitlements, but by payment of a fixed sum. … [48] We are comfortably satisfied that the intention of the parties … was for an equal division of their property. Whilst the parties turned their minds to how that would be achieved if the properties sold for more than what was expected, they did not, in the consent orders at least, address the issue of a shortfall. (…) [69] … The orders are still capable of being carried out. [70] It is well established that orders which can be put into effect are not rendered impracticable simply because they produce a different outcome to that which was intended (Rohde and Rohde [1984] FamCA 41…; La Rocca and La Rocca [1991] FamCA 97; Cawthorn v Cawthorn [1998] FamCA 37 and Sanger & Sanger [2011] FamCAFC 210). [71] It follows that a finding that it was impracticable to carry out the consent orders could not have been made.” The Full Court allowed the appeal, remitted the enforcement application for rehearing and ordered costs certificates.
81
