Archive for the ‘Barry Nilsson’ Category

Michael Kirby breaks old ground

Monday, August 10th, 2009

The former High Court judge is reported to have stated that Australia should follow the English model of dispute resolution by encouraging mediation and arbitration. Australian lawyers have been successfully using mediation for years. Family Court practices dictate the use of alternate dispute resolution before a judicial determination. Lord Woolf’s lessons were learned over a decade ago.

We, at Barry & Nilsson, use mediation as a matter of course and with an 80% plus success rate. Judges are there to resolve those cases that don’t settle despite the best attempts of the litigants and lawyers. Judges only see that part of the litigation above water and not the 7/8 below constituting settlements achieved with the assistance of diligent lawyers.

For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.

Income disparity

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

The Australian Institute of Studies has released a study confirming the long held view that divorce has lasting impacts on women’s income levels compared with their male partners. The information collected to reach this conclusion was compiled since 2001. There has, of course, been major legislative change in the form of the `shared care’ amendments during the study time. It is my experience that the `shared care’ regime and greater flexibility by employers has enabled mothers to re-enter the workforce far sooner. I suspect the reported gap will close somewhat over the near time.

Legal advisers should always be aware of spouse maintenance entitlements. I am sure many women have been `short changed’ by their advisers by not recommending the pursuit of this entitlement.

For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.

Review of children’s provisions

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

The Institute of Family Studies has been requested by the Federal Attorney General to review the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act, sometimes called the shared care amendments.

I am confident that the Institute can cut through the self-interested anecdotal based lobbying to reach a sensible conclusion. Anecdotes are typically boring and irrelevant. One outcome should be to recommend simplification of the convoluted provisions in the Act.

Tony Abbott’s reported suggestion to allow couples to opt into a fault based system are not likely to live long in the public mind.

For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.

Work to rules

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

It happened again to us last week. A judge with a whole day to spend hearing a complex interim issue told the parties that if the hearing goes beyond 4:30pm that the issue will be part-heard before him and not completed until December. He had not read the material and clearly had little appetite to do so. He told the parties that his 4:30pm deadline (admittedly knock-off time) arose due to the need to collect his wife from a shopping centre.

It gets harder and harder to recommend to clients to use the court process, but some have no alternative.

For more information, please contact Don Leembruggen or visit Barry & Nilsson Lawyers.