By and -

Key decisions

  • Farrah & Cisek [2024] FedCFamC1A 38
  • Marchini [2024] FedCFamC1A 47
  • Rana & Macaulay (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 82
  • Laska & Garvey (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 34


Division between two de facto wives was just and equitable – deliberate non-disclosures and not credibly accounting for spending $1,300,000 of second wife’s funds considered under s 90SF(3)(r)

In Farrah & Cisek [2024] FedCFamC1A 38 (28 March 2024) the Full Court (Tree, Baumann & Williams JJ) heard a de facto husband’s appeal from final property orders of Hartnett J. It was ordered that 100 per cent of the proceeds of sale of the appellant’s real property and superannuation be awarded to the first de facto wife, after payment of $625,711 to the second wife (second respondent).

The second wife, represented by a litigation guardian, was in a relationship with the appellant after his relationship with the first wife (at [2]).

As to the Court’s approach to multiple de facto partners, the Full Court said (from [33]):

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more