News & Resources

If you’ve ever watched a legal drama on television, you might think that you have a pretty good understanding of what lawyers do and how they work. However, the fact is often different to fiction. Here are the answers to some common questions people ask about working with lawyers.

In this video Kirstin Attard discusses superannuation and the way it is handled within the realms Family Law.

The Family Law Act defines superannuation as ‘property’ which is capable of being divided between the parties of a marriage or a de facto relationship. However, superannuation is treated differently to other assets. There are specific laws which regulate superannuation, including the process of splitting a superannuation interest.

‘Can I see my child if there is an AVO?’ Shweta Kumar answers this question and discusses the different types of AVOs.

An AVO can affect the nature of your relationship with your child. When parenting Orders are made, many people are unclear as to how an AVO impacts those parenting Orders.

A common misconception about divorce in Australia is that both parties must ‘agree’ to divorce. This is not the case. An application for divorce can either be made by both parties making a joint application for divorce, or, by one party making a sole application for divorce. It is important to remember that different obligations apply when making a sole or a joint application.

Interest rates are continuing to rise. We have had 12 interest rate rises since May 2022 and are likely to have another in the coming months. What does this mean for couples and the impact on marriages?

Are there conditions that need to be met to be eligible for Project Intervene? The following infographic explains these conditions.

Project Intervene leverages the authority of the NSW Department of Fair Trading to compel developers/builders to undertake the rectification of significant defects. Through these powers, the regulatory body can issue work orders that mandate the correction of any non-compliant building work.

In a recent Canadian court, a judge has ordered a farmer to pay CAD$82,000 (AUD$92,000) after determining that a “thumbs up emoji” used in a text message exchange was as valid as a signature. The ruling sets a unique precedent for the “internet age” and highlights the need for courts to be prepared for digital challenges.