Welcome to our Sydney Mills Oakley Family Law Newsletter for June 2026.
Below we provide you with the latest updates on our team, recent developments in family law and links to interesting articles and case law in the family law arena
It’s been another eventful month for the Sydney Mills Oakley Family Law Team. Take a look below to find out what we’ve been up to!
The Mills Oakley Family Law Sydney Team is proud to again be included in the third edition of Best Law Firms – Australia rankings. The team were included in the Sydney Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings, alongside the Mills Oakley Family Law Brisbane Team.
This exclusive list recognises the top 3% of firms nationwide.
Best Law Firms is an award bestowed to firms based on professional excellence by practice area and jurisdiction. These awards are new to the Australian market and are determined through research campaigns including over 1,400 client evaluations, more than 2,500 lawyer assessments and over 200 interviews with practice leaders. The process ranked over 600 firms across Australia.
If you or someone you know needs assistance with their family law matter, please don’t hesitate to contact Susan Warda at [email protected] or Carly Mirza-Price at [email protected] or +61 2 8289 5800.
In the below article, Family Law Senior Associate Jenna Georgopoulos, and Partner, Carly Mirza-Price explore how AI can be used appropriately in family law matters, the recent Practice Directions and the key guidance issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft Copilot, have emerged as a revolutionary tool for streamlining administration, clarifying legal concepts, improving efficiency and reducing costs, both for legal representatives, self-represented litigants and experts.
Notwithstanding its efficiencies, the use of AI requires considerable caution, particularly having regard to the risks involved with privacy and data.
FCFCOA Practice Directions
The use of AI is now directly governed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Practice Direction – Use of Artificial Intelligence (“Practice Directions”), which was issued last Friday, 29 May 2026. The Practice Directions reinforce the clear expectations for lawyers, litigants and experts appearing before the Court. This includes:
Recent Cases
There have been a number of recent cases in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“FCFCOA” or “the Court”), where legal practitioners have been referred to regulatory authorities for the improper use of AI in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). This has commonly occurred where documents have been filed which contain “hallucinogenic” (that is, cases which do not exist) or refer to erroneous citations. Similarly, self-represented litigants have relied on the use of AI to draft Court documents and inadvertently cited incorrect cases.
Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 (“Dayal”)
In the case of Dayal, a Victorian solicitor relied on case authorities which did not exist. The solicitor informed the Court that the documents were prepared using AI and acknowledged that they did not verify the accuracy of the information generated. Judge A Humphreys referred the legal practitioner to the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner for the improper use of AI.
Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 (“Helmold”)
In Helmold, the Full Court of the FCFCOA (“Full Court”) dismissed an Appeal brought by a self-represented litigant, who had used AI to prepare their Court documents. It was found that those documents included hallucinated case law together with cases which do exist but did not support the Appellant’s argument. The Full Court held that litigants have a duty not to mislead the Court or the other parties and that relying on unverified AI can cause confusion and unnecessarily complicate the matter. Litigants therefore have an obligation to check the accuracy of what is produced before presenting their case.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222 (“Mertz”)
In Mertz, the Full Court referred the conduct of the Appellant’s legal representatives to the relevant professional bodies. A solicitor used AI in the preparation of a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. While the solicitor denied using AI herself, she conceded that a paralegal of her office used AI to prepare the original documents without her knowledge. The Court was critical that the solicitor did not identify which AI program had been used and did not identify what, if any, training, supervision or guidance the paralegal had been given in relation to the use of AI. This decision reiterates that legal practitioners are accountable for accuracy of documents filed with the Court, regardless of whether they delegate tasks.
Jenson & Lockridge (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 44 (“Jensen”)
In Jensen, the self-represented Appellant used AI to formulate the grounds of appeal, draft the Summary of Argument and the content of her oral arguments. The Appellant explained that she had used a “professional” platform of AI which was “used by law firms”. Justice Campton referenced Helmold. The Appeal was dismissed.
Further, it is important to note that uploading Court documents or information to AI platforms may impinge section 114Q of the Act, which prohibits the publication of family law proceedings to the public.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the future use of AI in litigation appears unavoidable, and may be helpful in some cases, but its use and application should be applied with an appropriate degree of oversight, care and consideration.
For legal representatives, where AI is used in the preparation of Court documents, its output must be carefully checked. For litigants, legal research and the production of Court documents ought to be prepared by a qualified legal representative.
If you would like further advice about how this article or AI generally in relation to your family law matter, please contact one of our family lawyers.
For many Australians living and working in Singapore, family law is not something that feels immediately relevant. Life is busy, opportunities are exciting, and relationships are often built around shared goals such as careers, travel and raising children in an international environment. The reality is that family law becomes important not only when a relationship ends, but when life changes and for expatriate families those changes often carry an extra layer of complexity.
When does family law become relevant?
In many cases, it is not a single event, but a gradual shift. It might be a major life change such as the birth of a child, the pressure of raising children in a foreign country, where support networks are limited and questions arise about where a child should ultimately grow up or difficult decisions around ageing parents and whether to return home to provide support come to the fore.
Sometimes it is more personal and differences in values or expectations can become more visible over time. An extra-marital relationship may strain the foundation of a marriage. The demands of international careers can leave partners feeling disconnected.
When these issues emerge, family law steps in because it provides the structure for resolving them. In an international context, the stakes can be higher. Questions are no longer just about “what is fair”, but also where decisions should be made and which legal system applies. It is common for more than one country to have jurisdiction over a family dispute, and the choice of where to act can significantly affect outcomes.
For example:
These are not simple issues. They require careful thought and early guidance.
What are your options?
The most important step is often the simplest, informing yourself. Understanding the landscape by obtaining some family law advice does not mean you are committing to separation or litigation. It means you are acquiring knowledge to help you understand your rights, identify risks, and make decisions calmly rather than reactively.
In an expatriate context, this is particularly important because decisions made early, sometimes unintentionally, can have lasting consequences. For example, relocating with a child, transferring assets, or even delaying action may limit your options later.
Understanding your legal position allows you to:
A strategic, supportive approach
Family law should be seen as preventative, supportive and strategic. Like understanding your financial position or the matters affecting your children’s health and wellbeing, it is something worth having a basic knowledge of before issues arise. It provides a framework for making decisions that protect you and your family over the long term and should been viewed as part of building a stable and secure life abroad.
A recently launched government consultation in England & Wales*, A fairer end to relationships, sets out potential, wide-ranging reforms to the legal framework for relationship breakdown. The proposals include long-awaited consideration of protections for unmarried couples on separation and death, marking a pivotal moment for family law here. Paradoxically, in Australia, de facto relationship rights for property settlement and spousal maintenance have existed nationally for over 17 years. Yet in England & Wales, despite our Law Commission recommending change as long ago as 2007, successive governments hadn’t wanted to tackle it for fear of being seen to ‘devalue marriage’.
The consultation acknowledges that the law has not kept pace with societal change. Cohabiting couples are one of the fastest-growing family types in the UK (approximately 3.5 million households or 1 in 5 families, expected to be 1 in 4 by 2031) – yet they remain largely without legal protection on separation or death. The consultation seeks to address that imbalance while preserving marriage as a distinct legal institution.
Proposed rights for cohabitants on separation
The most significant proposal is a structured framework of rights and responsibilities on separation for eligible cohabitants. This would apply to those in an “enduring family relationship”: adults in committed, interdependent romantic relationships who have lived together for at least three years, or who share a child. Eligibility would be assessed against a checklist of factors, such as evidence of a shared household, financial interdependence, responsibility for children, a sexual relationship, stability and public recognition of the relationship.
Unlike in Australia, our policymakers – perhaps conscious of the court of public opinion at a time of political uncertainty in the UK – have opted to distinguish between rights on separation for married and unmarried couples. The consultation (deliberately) proposes a narrower, more contained model of financial provision for cohabitants than on divorce. Each partner would retain what they legally own, with financial claims limited to meeting needs (again more narrowly defined than for married couples on divorce) but not sharing wealth accumulated during the relationship. Ongoing ‘spousal’ maintenance would be exceptional. This reflects a balancing exercise: protecting against hardship while preserving the distinct legal status of marriage.
Under the proposals, couples could opt out of the framework, provided key safeguards were met, including contractual validity (e.g. no undue influence), material financial disclosure and independent legal advice. This highlights a tension: how to respect autonomy but guard against agreements being tainted by duress where there may be power imbalances or domestic abuse.
Proposed rights for cohabitants on death
A second strand of the proposals addresses what should happen when a cohabiting partner dies without a will. Unlike in Australia, at present, a cohabiting partner in England & Wales has no automatic inheritance rights when their partner dies intestate, no matter how long and committed the relationship, and they have to rely on making a claim against the estate. The current absence of automatic inheritance rights is widely seen as out of step with the realities of modern relationships.
The government proposes extending intestacy rights to qualifying cohabitants, with minimum periods of cohabitation to qualify under discussion – 5 years without children, 2 years with children are suggested. The consultation also proposes simplifying provision claims under inheritance legislation. Any reform in this area involves a delicate balance between the competing expectations of partners and children (often children of a previous relationship of the deceased) in a landscape of increasingly blended families.
Finances on divorce: greater structure, less uncertainty
For financial remedies on divorce, the emphasis in the proposals is less on radical change and more on codification and clarity. A “codification plus” model is proposed, placing established case law principles in statute, with targeted additional reforms.
The existing principles of “needs” and “sharing” would be set out in statute, with equal sharing of matrimonial property as the starting point, subject to adjustment to meet financial needs to facilitate transition to independence.
The distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property would also be defined, reflecting recent case law developments. Importantly, judicial discretion would remain, but within a clearer statutory framework designed to improve predictability and encourage earlier settlement.
Binding nuptial agreements
The consultation moves towards recognising binding nuptial agreements. “Qualifying Nuptial Agreements” would be enforceable, subject to key safeguards: contractual validity; execution as a deed; material financial disclosure; independent legal advice; and signed a minimum 28-days before the wedding.
While nuptial agreements have carried weight in the UK since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino, their status remains uncertain, subject to a fact-sensitive fairness test. The proposed reforms nod to greater autonomy and certainty, albeit with an important safety net: where needs are not met by the QNA, the court may still intervene – but on a narrower basis than at present.
Looking ahead
The themes in the consultation are universal: how to better support different family structures, reduce hardship on separation, and provide clearer, more predictable outcomes. For couples – whether married or not – the message remains that legal rights do not always align with expectations. Early advice, clear agreements, and considered estate planning are essential.
The consultation runs until 14 August, with a Bill to be laid before parliament “when parliamentary time allows”. We are encouraging anyone with a connection to England & Wales (especially those in a cohabiting relationship) to have discussions now about desired outcomes on separation or death and, during this period of possible transition, put in place cohabitation agreements and Wills to ensure their intentions are followed.
* The law in Scotland is distinct and rather different. They have had a framework of rights and responsibilities for unmarried couples since 2006, based on compensation principles; and a different approach towards finances on divorce.
We work hard to ensure the best possible outcomes for our clients, and we value the feedback we receive every day. Here’s a snapshot of what some of our client’s said this month:
“Thank you Susan and Ella for today. I am blown away by what you have been able to do for me. I am really grateful for all the excellent advice, support and your effort.” [to Partner, Susan Warda and Lawyer, Ella Richardson]
“Hi Susan, I’m so grateful for the help and support you and Shannon have provided to me.” [to Partner, Susan Warda and Lawyer, Shannon Jenkin]
“Hi Carly, Thank you! It’s definitely a relief. You guys have done a great job getting everything so well protected and split up fairly.” [to Partner, Carly Mirza-Price]
Referrals are important to us. If you know someone who would benefit from a confidential conversation with a family lawyer, please pass on our details and we will do our very best to look after them.
If you would like further information or have any queries regarding other matters, please do not hesitate to contact:
