Aug 20, 2026 · 1 hr 7 min · 14 segments
In this episode of *Daze in Court*, Foley's barrister Rohan Hoult is joined by List member Jim Mellas and Keleigh Robinson from Carew Counsel to discuss disclosure obligations in family law, including…
Rowan HoltHost
Jim MellasGuest
Keleigh RobinsonGuest
It's a ripper case, and it deals with a judge who made interim and final orders at the same time in a relocation case, which I know that, um, people of the standing like Mallas, who sits in here, probably would say to me, "Well, I've had that all before." Well, I haven't had that much experience in a judge making interim and final orders in a children's case.
It's worth reading that, and it's also worth reading it because of the way in which the judge utilized the interim order process to try and make orders, uh, if you like, for, uh, therapy and things like that, which normally require some sort of scaffolding, if you like, if you're to attach it to a, um, to a parenting order.
Uh, judges saying, "Oh, our job is to make sure the family's a better family and that children are better off here and better..." I'm not sure about all of that.
And, um, I'm not sure it's the role of the family court, uh, to start telling people precisely how to parent.
Um, and, uh, that's what aspirational orders are, hoping that you'll get a perfect parenting arrangement Uh, anyhow, have a good look at that judgment.
It's worth looking at that, A, to see how the jurisdiction works, and B, as I said, in relation to, um, the aspect of aspirational orders.
Uh, another good judgment was from Justice Chanel, I think, uh, uh, Ziskind and Greco.
What was it about that judgment? Well, that judgment dealt with how we deal with family violence.
I think I can say in just about every mediation I'm doing nowadays, uh, mediation, uh, domestic violence raises its head, and I think people are somewhat confused as to what it means.
Uh, some people look at it in terms of, "Well, I need to get this issue out." Some people look at it from the point of view of, "I want more money," some sort of adjustment.
And, um, as Justice Chanel then said in that case, and making reference to other authorities, he said, "For family violence to be relevant in a financial dispute, the conduct," if you like, "must be of a kind that affects the party's ability to make contributions within the meaning of the act." So often when people come in and tell these dreadful stories about, um, domestic violence, we do have to, none of us as lawyers, factor how we take these matters into account in terms of percentage adjustments.
Uh, my experience is that things haven't changed a lot despite that, uh, legislation.
The normal adjustment might be two or two and a half percent or something like that.
Uh, I noticed in that particular case of, uh, Justice Chanel, he seemed to make an adjustment of 2% in the wife's favor.
So some of the younger practitioners now call that a 4% adjustment, but 2%, 52/48.
It's a ripper case, and it deals with a judge who made interim and final orders at the same time in a relocation case, which I know that, um, people of the standing like Mallas, who sits in here, probably would say to me, "Well, I've had that all before." Well, I haven't had that much experience in a judge making interim and final orders in a children's case.
It's worth reading that, and it's also worth reading it because of the way in which the judge utilized the interim order process to try and make orders, uh, if you like, for, uh, therapy and things like that, which normally require some sort of scaffolding, if you like, if you're to attach it to a, um, to a parenting order.
Uh, judges saying, "Oh, our job is to make sure the family's a better family and that children are better off here and better..." I'm not sure about all of that.
And, um, I'm not sure it's the role of the family court, uh, to start telling people precisely how to parent.
Um, and, uh, that's what aspirational orders are, hoping that you'll get a perfect parenting arrangement Uh, anyhow, have a good look at that judgment.
It's worth looking at that, A, to see how the jurisdiction works, and B, as I said, in relation to, um, the aspect of aspirational orders.
Uh, another good judgment was from Justice Chanel, I think, uh, uh, Ziskind and Greco.
What was it about that judgment? Well, that judgment dealt with how we deal with family violence.
I think I can say in just about every mediation I'm doing nowadays, uh, mediation, uh, domestic violence raises its head, and I think people are somewhat confused as to what it means.
Uh, some people look at it in terms of, "Well, I need to get this issue out." Some people look at it from the point of view of, "I want more money," some sort of adjustment.
And, um, as Justice Chanel then said in that case, and making reference to other authorities, he said, "For family violence to be relevant in a financial dispute, the conduct," if you like, "must be of a kind that affects the party's ability to make contributions within the meaning of the act." So often when people come in and tell these dreadful stories about, um, domestic violence, we do have to, none of us as lawyers, factor how we take these matters into account in terms of percentage adjustments.
Uh, my experience is that things haven't changed a lot despite that, uh, legislation.
The normal adjustment might be two or two and a half percent or something like that.
Uh, I noticed in that particular case of, uh, Justice Chanel, he seemed to make an adjustment of 2% in the wife's favor.
So some of the younger practitioners now call that a 4% adjustment, but 2%, 52/48.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.