The Family Court of Australia was a superior Australian federal court of record which deals with family law matters, such as divorce applications, parenting disputes, and the division of property when a couple separate. Together with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, it covered family law matters in all states and territories of Australia except for Western Australia, which has a separate Family Court. Its core function was to determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties, to cover specialised areas in family law, and to provide national coverage as the national appellate court for family law matters.In 2021, the Morrison Government introduced legislation merging the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to form the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, effective from 1 September 2021. Since the merge. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is the only court which has jurisdiction to deal with all family law related issues..
Economic abuse is a form of family violence that is under-recognised and underreported. A particular type of economic abuse is debt abuse in relation to joint borrowings for property and the provision of guarantees.The doctrines of unconscionability (both under statute and equity), undue influence, and statutory jurisdictions to set aside ‘unjust contracts’ are key doctrines for a victim who seeks to have a credit contract set aside. This article uses a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the facts and outcomes of ten years of Australian case law between 2008 and 2018 to examine whether victims of intimate partner debt abuse are obtaining meaningful outcomes using these doctrines.We conclude that in the case of intimate partner debt abuse caused by family violence, the legal system is not able to account for gendered inequalities of bargaining power nor provide adequate remedies.We provide recommendations for reform both at doctrinal level and as part of broadersystemic reform.
Australian Contract Law in the 21st Century. Edited by John Eldridge and Timothy Pilkington. [Alexandria, NSW: The Federation Press, 2021. xxvi + 325 pp. Hardback $160.00. ISBN 978-1-760-02253-2.] - Volume 81 Issue 1
Separation is a high‐risk time in families and for many it marks the onset or escalation of family safety and wellbeing risks like Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Best practice for identifying such risks in court or community mediation services is systematic inquiry about safety risks with structured tools to overcome under‐reporting of risks. However, turning best practice recommendations into routine practice can take years – even when the evidence is strong that practitioners and their clients will ultimately benefit. Relationships Australia South Australia has addressed this evidence‐practice gap by engaging our leadership and undertaking whole‐of‐organization implementation of the Family DOORS framework. This includes the validated screening tool DOOR 1, that helps practitioners identify and respond to family‐wide risks during peak stress such as separation. In this article, we review our 10‐year implementation journey towards best practice in risk screening, reporting on 28,097 screens completed with clients to date. We describe the initiatives used to address practitioner and infrastructure barriers to implementation. We present both quantitative and qualitative indicators of practitioner change along with client survey data (n = 1,291), demonstrating changes in practices that have enhanced client engagement and led to an increase in client safety and wellbeing outcomes. We share recommendations for and innovations in translation to other service contexts. We hope that using the following recommendations and adopting the DOORS tools will encourage and enable others to implement best practice risk screening in far less than 10 years.
