Appellate Property Settlement Repayment After Orders Set Aside: Can a Respondent Freeze the Repayment and Restrain Dealings With the Former Matrimonial Home Pending a Rehearing?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Cosio & Cosio (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1A 6, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction

Presiding Judge:

Tree J

Cause of Action:

Family law appeal-related application for ancillary relief following the allowing of an appeal from final property settlement orders and remittal for rehearing under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Judgment Date:

30 January 2023

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Appellate jurisdiction
Keyword 3: Slip rule
Keyword 4: Repayment after orders set aside
Keyword 5: Interest reserved to the court below
Keyword 6: Restraints, injunctions, caveats in family law property proceedings

Background

This case sits at the intersection of practical litigation reality and appellate procedure. A final property settlement order required the Applicant to pay a substantial sum to the Respondent. The Applicant paid. Then the Applicant succeeded on appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a rehearing before a different judge in Division 2. A problem emerged that many litigants only discover after the appeal win has already been declared: money paid under the original orders had already changed hands, and the orders needed to be formally set aside so that the legal basis for the payment no longer stood.

Once the original orders were set aside, a further question became unavoidable: should the Respondent be required to repay the money now, and if so, on what terms? The Respondent’s position introduced a second layer of dispute: if repayment is ordered now, can the appellate court impose restrictions that effectively freeze the Applicant’s use of the repaid money and restrain dealings with the former matrimonial home until the rehearing finally determines who should get what?

This is not a morality play. It is a procedural and jurisdictional dispute about the proper limits of appellate power, the appropriate forum for interim restraints, and how the Court manages risk when the ultimate entitlements remain unresolved.

Core Disputes and Claims

The legal focus question was this:

1. After an appeal succeeds and the original final property settlement orders are set aside, should the Respondent be ordered to repay the money received under those orders, and should that repayment be unconditional?
2. Can the appellate court, on an application in the appeal, impose conditions on repayment that restrain the Applicant from dealing with the repaid funds or with the Applicant’s interest in the former matrimonial home pending the rehearing?
3. How should the Court deal with the question of interest on repayment when the rehearing may ultimately determine that the Respondent is entitled to some or all of the amount?

Relief sought by the Applicant:
– An order varying the appeal orders under the slip rule so the appealed orders are set aside, and consequential repayment of the sum paid under the original orders.
– Repayment plus interest from the date of payment.

Relief sought by the Respondent:
– Repayment structured through a nominated bank account with verification conditions.
– Restraints preventing the Applicant from withdrawing, transferring, disposing of, or dealing with the repaid funds without consent or further order.
– Restraints preventing the Applicant from selling, encumbering, transferring, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with the Applicant’s interest in the former matrimonial home.
– Permission for the Respondent to lodge a caveat over the former matrimonial home to secure the Respondent’s claimed interest pending finalisation.
– Costs of the application.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

This litigation began in a familiar family law setting: a final property settlement order was made under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79. The order required a substantial transfer of money from the Applicant to the Respondent. The Applicant complied and paid the sum. That payment was not theoretical; it occurred in real time, with real financial consequences.

Soon after, the Applicant pursued appellate relief. The appeal succeeded. The appellate court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for rehearing before another judge. This procedural posture matters. A remittal for rehearing is not the appellate court substituting a final property division outcome. It is the appellate court saying, in effect, that the earlier exercise of discretion cannot stand and must be done again, by someone else, according to law.

At that point, the parties were in a holding pattern with high stakes. The Respondent had money that originated from an order no longer secure. The Applicant had an appellate victory but not yet a final re-determination of property entitlements. The rehearing would decide what, if anything, the Respondent should ultimately receive.

The turning point that triggered this ancillary dispute was administrative but critical: the appellate judge intended to set aside the original orders but that step was inadvertently overlooked in the orders initially made. The Applicant then filed an application to correct that omission using the slip rule. Once the orders were amended to include setting aside the original property settlement orders, the question of repayment became pressing and immediate.

In practical terms, the parties’ conflict evolved from “who should get what in the property pool?” into “who should hold the money right now, and what safeguards should exist while the rehearing is pending?”

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Procedural history showing the original property settlement orders were made in Division 2 and later appealed.
2. Proof of payment of the sum to the Respondent pursuant to the original orders, including the timing of payment.
3. The appeal outcome: the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing, with subsequent correction under the slip rule to set aside the original orders.
4. Argument that repayment is a necessary consequence of setting aside the orders under which the money was paid.
5. Claim for interest from the date of payment, framed as a compensatory outcome for being out of funds during the relevant period.

The Applicant’s position, stripped to its essentials, was that once the legal foundation for the payment was removed, the money should be returned, and it should be returned without conditions that would undermine the practical benefit of repayment.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Acceptance that repayment could occur, but resistance to an unconditional repayment order.
2. Opposition to interest, on the basis that the rehearing may determine the Respondent is entitled to some or all of the original sum, making interest potentially premature or unfair.
3. Requests for restrictions as conditions of repayment:
   • The money should be paid into a specified bank account, with verification, reflecting concern about offsets and mortgage-related arrangements linked to the former matrimonial home.
   • A restraint on dealing with the repaid funds, effectively freezing them pending finalisation.
   • A restraint on dealing with the Applicant’s interest in the former matrimonial home.
   • Permission to lodge a caveat to secure the Respondent’s asserted interest pending the rehearing.

The Respondent’s position functioned as a risk-management strategy: if the money must be repaid now, it should be locked down so that the Respondent can still recover it later if the rehearing awards the Respondent an entitlement.

Core Dispute Points

1. Repayment now versus repayment later: whether the repayment should happen immediately as a natural consequence of setting aside the orders.
2. Conditionality: whether repayment should be accompanied by restrictions that preserve the funds and preserve property dealings pending rehearing.
3. Forum and power: whether the appellate court is the correct forum, and whether it has the power on an application in the appeal to impose the restraints sought.
4. Interest: whether interest should be ordered now, and if so on what basis, or reserved for determination by the rehearing court.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Even in a short judgment, the strategic function of affidavit evidence is visible through the parties’ positions.

The Applicant’s litigation narrative, commonly deployed in these contexts, is a narrative of legal correction and restoration: the Applicant complied with a court order, paid the money, then successfully appealed, and now seeks to restore the pre-order position pending a lawful rehearing. In affidavit form, this is typically built on clean chronology, documentary proof of payment, and procedural orders of the Court. The objective is to reduce discretion and frame repayment as a straightforward consequence rather than a contested equitable adjustment.

The Respondent’s affidavit narrative, by contrast, usually emphasises practical risk: the rehearing has not yet occurred, the ultimate entitlement is uncertain, and repayment without safeguards could cause irreversible prejudice. The Respondent attempts to reframe repayment as an interim step that must be accompanied by interim protection, effectively importing the logic of freezing orders and property injunctions into the appellate application.

The key boundary between facts and overreach in affidavit drafting in a case like this is subtle but decisive. A party can swear facts about money being held, accounts used, mortgage payments, and concerns about dissipation. But a party must still identify a lawful pathway for the order sought. Affidavit facts do not create jurisdiction; they only supply the evidentiary basis for the Court to exercise a power it already has.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions Regarding Affidavits

Where courts direct affidavit filing in ancillary appellate applications, the intent is usually:
– To crystallise the issues into a small set of legally answerable questions, separating factual disputes from power disputes.
– To force the party seeking restraints to put forward specific facts demonstrating risk, rather than relying on general fear.
– To allow the Court to determine whether the orders sought are properly made in the appellate proceeding or should be pursued in the court below where interlocutory and case management powers are more naturally exercised.

In this matter, the Respondent’s concessions were strategically important. The Respondent did not oppose repayment in principle. This shifted the contest away from repayment itself and onto conditions and interest. That concession, in practical litigation terms, narrowed the battlefield and increased the importance of identifying a lawful source of power for any restraints.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing of the applications, the procedural framework included:
1. Final property settlement orders made in Division 2 requiring payment from the Applicant to the Respondent.
2. Payment made by the Applicant to the Respondent in compliance with those orders.
3. Appeal allowed in Division 1 and matter remitted for rehearing before another judge in Division 2.
4. Slip rule order made to amend the appeal orders to include setting aside the original orders.
5. Filing of an Application in an Appeal by the Applicant seeking consequential relief including repayment and interest.
6. Filing of a response by the Respondent seeking conditions, restraints, permission for a caveat, and costs.

The procedural story illustrates a critical self-agency lesson: an appellate win may not automatically unwind what has already been done under the orders unless the orders are formally set aside and consequential relief is pursued promptly and properly.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing was not a full re-trial of the parties’ property entitlements. It was an application hearing focused on the scope of appellate orders, ancillary relief, and whether interim restrictions should attach to repayment.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The structure of argument in a case like this tends to unfold in a predictable order:

1. The Applicant anchors the discussion in procedure and consequences: the original orders were set aside, therefore repayment follows.
2. The Respondent accepts the core consequence but attempts to negotiate the terms: repayment should occur in a controlled manner with restraints and property protections.
3. The Court tests the Respondent’s position with a decisive line of inquiry: what is the source of power for the appellate court to make those restraints in this procedural posture, and why should those matters not be dealt with by the court below in the rehearing process?

Where cross-examination occurs in application hearings, it is usually limited and focused, often directed at whether funds are truly at risk, where they are held, and whether there is a factual basis for immediate restraints. But even compelling facts about risk do not solve a jurisdictional defect. The Court’s focus here was on legal power and appropriate procedure.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The most decisive “evidence” was the procedural record:
– Money was paid under orders that were subsequently set aside.
– The rehearing was pending, so ultimate entitlement remained unresolved.
– The Respondent sought orders resembling freezing and property injunctions without identifying a clear statutory or regulatory foundation within the appellate application process.
– The Respondent conceded the capacity to seek such relief in Division 2, which is structurally positioned to manage interim issues pending rehearing.

Judicial Reasoning With Determinative Original Quotation

The Court’s reasoning can be distilled into two decisive findings: repayment should be ordered, but the ancillary restraints sought by the Respondent were not properly made in this proceeding and should be pursued in the court below.

“Not only had the [Respondent] not sought any such orders at the hearing of the appeal, but unsurprisingly, [the Respondent] was unable to point to any statutory, regulatory or judicial authority for the imposition of the conditions which [the Respondent] sought.”

This statement was determinative because it frames the dispute as a power problem rather than a sympathy problem. The Court held that the absence of identified authority was fatal to the attempt to condition repayment through restraints. In Australian family law, interim relief often depends on demonstrated risk, but it must also rest on a recognised legal footing and be sought in the proper procedural forum.

“Moreover the [Respondent] conceded that all such orders could be sought on application to the [Division 2 Court] … In my view, that is the appropriate procedure, even if I do have power to impose such restrictions …”

This was determinative because it crystallised the Court’s preference for procedural correctness. The Court held that the proper pathway for the Respondent’s protective strategy was to apply in Division 2 in the rehearing context, where case management powers and interlocutory processes are designed to evaluate and supervise restraints, undertakings, and property protections.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders in substance as follows:

1. The Respondent was ordered to forthwith repay the Applicant the sum of AUD $824,369.
2. The question of whether interest should be paid on the repayment sum, and if so at what rate and in what amount, was reserved to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
3. Otherwise, the Applicant’s application was dismissed.
4. The Respondent’s response seeking restraints, permission to caveat, and related relief was dismissed.

The practical outcome was clear: repayment was immediate and unconditional, but interest was not decided at this appellate stage.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

This chapter is structured to serve three audiences at once:
– For the public: it explains what happened and why it matters in plain legal English.
– For practitioners: it models how to present and resist ancillary relief applications with proper framing.
– For judicial peers: it extracts the logic as a tight headnote-style explanation.

The Court’s reasoning follows a disciplined structure:
– Identify what the appellate orders achieved and what they did not.
– Identify which consequences flow naturally from setting aside orders.
– Distinguish between consequential relief and substantive interim protections that should be sought in the court below.
– Manage uncertainty about ultimate entitlements by reserving interest.

Special Analysis: The Jurisprudential Value and Unusual Aspects

This case demonstrates an appellate court’s cautious approach to expanding the scope of ancillary relief within an appeal proceeding. The jurisprudential value lies in its insistence on a proper legal foundation for restraints and its practical solution to the interest issue.

Three unusual but important features stand out:

1. The case is short, but it is strategically rich. It shows how parties attempt to use an appellate application to achieve interim outcomes that resemble freezing orders, even when the substantive merits are headed to rehearing.
2. The Court focused on procedural appropriateness, not only raw power. Even where a question of power was left open, the Court selected the procedure that best fits the court system’s design: seek restraints where rehearing management occurs.
3. The Court separated repayment from interest. This is a sophisticated risk-balancing approach: restore the money position now, but avoid premature interest findings when entitlement is uncertain and the rate calculation is contested.

For litigants, this is an agency blueprint: win the procedural step you actually need, and bring the right application in the right forum, rather than trying to load every protective measure into a single procedural moment.

Judgment Points: Uncommon Rulings and Noteworthy Details

1. The slip rule correction was not cosmetic. It enabled the legal consequence of repayment to be properly pursued as an outcome connected to setting aside the original orders.
2. The Court treated repayment as a logical consequence once the appealed orders were set aside, rather than as a discretionary interim indulgence.
3. The Court refused to convert a repayment order into a quasi-trust arrangement controlled by the Respondent through restraint conditions.
4. The Court highlighted a key constraint on caveats in this context by relying on authority indicating that mere entitlement to seek s 79 relief does not support a caveat.
5. The Court treated undertakings as relevant to the character of injunction-style relief, implicitly acknowledging that restraint orders are not neutral administrative steps; they are coercive and typically accompanied by safeguards.

Legal Basis: Statutory Provisions and Sections Used to Resolve Evidentiary Contradictions

The key statutory anchor referenced in the case context is Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79, because the underlying dispute is property settlement and the rehearing will occur within that framework.

However, the operative legal technique in this ancillary application was not a fresh s 79 evaluation. It was the appellate management of consequences and forum:

1. Slip rule correction to include setting aside the appealed orders, enabling the legal consequence of repayment to be pursued.
2. Reliance on principle that the court below can give effect to appeal orders, supporting reservation of interest to Division 2, with reference to Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273.
3. Recognition that caveat rights are constrained where the asserted interest is not one that law recognises as supporting a caveat, with reference to Australian Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Parry (1992) ANZ Conv R 166.

The Court held that, on the authorities and practicalities, reserving interest to Division 2 was the most expedient course given uncertainty about the proper rate and the ultimate entitlement.

Evidence Chain: Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory and Authoritative Principles

Victory Point 1: A clean procedural chronology creates legal inevitability
– Evidence: original orders, payment, appeal allowed, remittal, slip rule correction, application in appeal.
– Legal consequence: once orders are set aside, a repayment order becomes the logical restoration step.
– Practical agency: parties who maintain complete, dated procedural records can transform an argument from discretionary fairness to procedural necessity.

Victory Point 2: Concessions narrow issues and shift the burden to power and procedure
– Evidence: Respondent did not oppose repayment in principle.
– Legal consequence: contest became conditionality and interest, not repayment itself.
– Practical agency: when you concede what cannot realistically be resisted, you gain credibility and can focus resources on the true battleground, but you still must identify lawful authority for what you want.

Victory Point 3: Restraints require more than fear; they require an identified source of power and proper procedural posture
– Evidence: Respondent could not point to statutory, regulatory, or judicial authority for the conditions sought in this appellate application.
– Legal consequence: the Court dismissed the restraint requests.
– Practical agency: do not mistake a persuasive risk narrative for a legal pathway. The Court’s first question will be: where does the power come from?

Victory Point 4: Forum selection is itself a litigation strategy
– Evidence: Respondent conceded the orders could be sought in Division 2.
– Legal consequence: the Court held that was the appropriate procedure.
– Practical agency: choose the court level that is structurally designed to supervise interim orders. Appellate courts are reluctant to turn appeal applications into broad interlocutory management platforms.

Victory Point 5: Interest on repayment is not automatic when ultimate entitlement is uncertain
– Evidence: dispute about whether Respondent may ultimately be entitled to some or all of the amount; uncertainty about rate and calculation depends on repayment timing.
– Legal consequence: interest reserved to Division 2.
– Practical agency: when the law is fact-dependent and outcome-dependent, seek reservation to the forum that will have the full context and can make an informed discretionary call.

Victory Point 6: Caveats are not a universal security tool in family law property disputes
– Evidence: reliance on authority indicating s 79 entitlement does not support a caveat.
– Legal consequence: the Respondent’s attempt to create a caveat right through orders was rejected.
– Practical agency: security devices have strict legal thresholds. A party should consider alternative lawful protective measures such as injunction applications in the correct forum, supported by undertakings.

Victory Point 7: Undertakings matter because restraints are coercive and can cause loss
– Evidence: the Applicant contended restraints could not be exercised absent the usual undertakings accompanying such injunctions.
– Legal consequence: reinforces why such orders belong in the interlocutory management of the court below, not as conditions within an appellate repayment direction.
– Practical agency: if you seek restraints, prepare to give meaningful undertakings and present a structured evidentiary case demonstrating necessity and proportionality.

Judicial Original Quotation: The Ratio in Authoritative Dicta

“Given that, neither party opposed the question of interest on the repayment amount being reserved to the [Division 2 Court] … it appears that the court from which the appeal was brought has the power to thereafter give effect to the orders made on appeal … and in the circumstances, as regards the question of interest, that seems the most expedient course.”

This statement was determinative because it shows the Court selecting a practical mechanism rooted in authority: interest is not ignored, but it is postponed to the forum that can make a fully informed determination after repayment occurs and after the rehearing context is clearer.

“In my view, that is the appropriate procedure, even if I do have power to impose such restrictions on the repayment …”

This statement was determinative because it reflects a judicial preference for the correct procedural pathway. Even where an arguable power might exist, the Court held that the right course was to pursue restraints in Division 2.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s protective strategy failed for reasons that offer clear practical lessons:

1. Failure to anchor the restraint requests in identified authority
   The Court held the Respondent was unable to point to statutory, regulatory, or judicial authority for imposing the conditions. In appellate applications, especially, an order that resembles a freezing order or property injunction will be examined for its lawful foundation.

2. Failure to seek the relief at the proper stage
   The Court noted the Respondent had not sought such orders at the appeal hearing. Timing matters. Courts expect parties to raise protective requests when the relevant forum is considering the appeal, or otherwise to pursue them promptly in the appropriate court below.

3. Attempt to graft interlocutory restraints onto a repayment consequence
   Repayment is a restorative consequence. The Respondent sought to convert it into an asset-preservation mechanism controlled by restraints. The Court treated that as a qualitatively different species of relief that should be pursued through interlocutory procedure.

4. Overreach in the caveat request
   The attempt to obtain an order permitting a caveat was inconsistent with authority that mere entitlement to seek s 79 relief does not support a caveat. The Court held such an order would effectively create a right otherwise not allowed.

5. Concession that Division 2 was the correct forum
   The Respondent conceded the relief could be sought in Division 2. That concession undermined the case for the appellate court to make the orders, because it highlighted that the appropriate pathway existed elsewhere and should be used.

Key to Victory: The Successful Party’s Most Critical Evidence and Arguments

• The successful party’s core advantage was procedural clarity: the original orders were set aside, repayment is a logical consequence.
• The successful party maintained focus on what the appellate court should do in an application in the appeal: correct the orders, direct repayment, and avoid turning the appellate forum into an interim property management court.
• The successful party resisted interest being determined prematurely and accepted reservation to Division 2, which presented as a reasonable and court-efficient position.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273
Ratio summary: The court from which an appeal is brought has power to give effect to the orders made on appeal. In this case, that principle supported reserving the interest question to Division 2, where the rehearing court can implement and finalise consequential aspects in context.

Australian Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Parry (1992) ANZ Conv R 166
Ratio summary: A caveat must be supported by a recognised interest capable of sustaining it. A bare entitlement to seek relief, without a proprietary interest of the type required, does not support a caveat. In this case, the Respondent’s s 79 claim could not, of itself, justify a caveat over the former matrimonial home.

Cosio & Cosio [2022] FedCFamC1A 187
Ratio summary: The appeal from the original property settlement orders was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing before another judge in Division 2. This procedural fact framed the ancillary dispute about repayment, interim restraints, and interest.

Implications: Five Practical Legal Lessons With a Self-Agency Focus

1. Procedural wins only protect you if you secure the consequential steps
   An appeal victory is powerful, but if money has already been paid, you may need separate consequential orders to restore your position. Self-agency begins with asking: what practical outcome do I need next, and what order creates it?

2. Interim protection is a tool, not a shortcut
   If you fear dissipation or risk, do not try to smuggle a freezing order into a proceeding that is not designed to supervise it. Use the correct procedure in the correct court, supported by proper evidence and a lawful foundation.

3. Your best argument is the one that the Court is allowed to answer
   Many litigants lose not because their fear is unreasonable, but because they seek relief that the Court is not persuaded it should grant in that forum. Build your case around power, jurisdiction, and proper steps, not only around what feels fair.

4. Interest disputes require timing discipline
   When entitlement is unresolved and calculation depends on future events, seeking immediate interest can backfire. Sometimes the strongest move is to reserve interest to the court that will decide the substantive dispute with full context.

5. Security devices have strict thresholds
   Caveats are not a universal safety net. If your interest does not support a caveat, focus on lawful alternatives: injunctions, undertakings, and case-managed interim orders in the court below. You protect yourself best when you use the tool that actually fits your legal position.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a party has already been paid under a property settlement order and then the appeal succeeds, does the money automatically have to be repaid?

Repayment often becomes the practical consequence once the orders underpinning the payment are set aside, but the pathway still matters. A party may need to seek a clear repayment order, particularly where the appeal orders require formal correction or where the money has been paid and the matter is remitted for rehearing rather than finally re-determined by the appellate court.

Q2: Can the appellate court freeze the repaid funds so the paying party cannot spend them before the rehearing?

A party may attempt to seek such restraints, but they must identify a lawful basis and the correct procedural forum. In this case, the Court held the Respondent could not point to authority for imposing those conditions in the appellate application and considered the appropriate pathway was to apply in Division 2, where the rehearing will occur and where interlocutory management powers are routinely exercised.

Q3: Why did the Court not decide interest immediately?

Interest was contested because the rehearing may determine the Respondent is entitled to some or all of the amount, and because the rate and calculation depend on timing. The Court adopted a practical approach: order repayment now, and reserve the question of interest to Division 2, which can determine it with full context and in a way consistent with implementing the appeal outcome.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype:

Family Law Property Settlement Appeal Consequences: Repayment, Interim Restraints, and Security Measures Pending Rehearing

Judgment Nature Definition:

Final judgment on ancillary application in an appeal, with consequential repayment ordered and interest reserved to the court below

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case belongs most closely to Category ① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law) because it arises from property settlement under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 and concerns interim protection strategies pending rehearing. The following legal tests are reference frameworks only. Outcomes tend to be fact-specific and depend on evidence quality, procedural posture, and the court’s discretion.

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship Under Section 4AA

Duration of the relationship: the relationship commonly needs to have continued for at least 2 years unless an exception applies.
Nature and extent of common residence: the inquiry examines whether the parties lived together and whether cohabitation was continuous or intermittent.
Whether a sexual relationship exists: the presence or history of sexual intimacy may be relevant but is not determinative.
Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: the court examines financial support, shared expenses, and patterns of financial decision-making.
Ownership, use and acquisition of property: the court considers whether assets were held jointly or separately and how property was used during the relationship.
Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: the court assesses whether the relationship functioned as a shared domestic life rather than casual association.
The care and support of children: parenting responsibilities and support arrangements can be influential.
Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: the court considers whether friends, family, and the broader community viewed the parties as a couple.
Any other relevant circumstance: the statutory concept requires a holistic evaluation of the relationship’s reality in practice.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

Identification and Valuation: determine the net asset pool by identifying all assets and liabilities and assigning values, often using expert evidence where needed.
Assessment of Contributions: assess financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and contributions to the welfare of the family, including homemaking and parenting.
Adjustment for Future Needs: consider relevant future needs factors, including age, health, income earning capacity, responsibility for children, and standards of living, applying the statutory framework that governs the jurisdiction in question.
Just and Equitable: conduct a final check to determine whether the proposed division is fair in all the circumstances, having regard to the parties’ actual history and current needs.

Parenting Matters Under Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Primary Considerations: the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with protection from harm given greater weight.
Additional Considerations: the views of the child in light of maturity, the capacity of each parent to provide for needs, the likely effect of changes, practical difficulties and expense, and any family violence factors relevant to safety.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

This case illustrates how parties may seek protective relief when the substantive property division is not yet finally determined. Where statutory avenues are incomplete or procedurally unavailable in the chosen forum, equitable and common law doctrines may provide alternative pathways. These are reference frameworks only and tend to be determined by specific facts, documentary evidence, and procedural timing.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about a property or financial benefit?
Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise in a way that was reasonable in context?
Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from the promise in light of the reliance and detriment?
Possible consequence: equity may prevent the other party from going back on their word and may support relief shaped to avoid unconscionable outcomes.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Has the other party received a benefit at your expense, such as money, labour, or improvements to property?
Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without compensating you?
Possible consequence: restitutionary relief or recognition of a beneficial interest, depending on the circumstances and the nature of the enrichment.

Procedural Fairness and Correct Forum Selection

Did the decision-making pathway provide a fair opportunity to be heard on interim protections?
Was the chosen forum the correct court for interlocutory restraints and supervision of undertakings?
Practical application in this case type: when seeking restraints, applying in the court below pending rehearing often tends to be the more procedurally aligned approach.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

This case highlights procedural thresholds that can shape outcomes independent of merits.

Regular Thresholds

Appeal-related timing requirements: appellate steps and applications should be made promptly because consequential relief may otherwise become practically difficult.
Interlocutory relief thresholds: injunction-type orders typically require a demonstrated basis, evidence of risk, and procedural safeguards such as undertakings.
Property settlement processes: rehearings and case management directions often set deadlines that, if missed, can undermine protective strategies.

Exceptional Channels

Less than 2 years of cohabitation in de facto matters: exemption may be available pursuant to Section 90SB where there is a child of the relationship or substantial contributions and serious injustice would result without an order.
Protective relief in urgent circumstances: where risk of dissipation is demonstrated, courts may consider urgent interim orders, but they tend to require clear evidence and proper undertakings, and they are often better pursued in the court managing the rehearing.

Suggestion

Do not abandon a potential claim simply because a standard time or condition appears not to be met. Carefully compare your circumstances against exceptions and procedural alternatives, because these can be decisive in achieving interim protection while the substantive dispute is determined.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is most useful in submissions involving:
– Consequences of appeal orders in family law property matters, especially where money has been paid under orders that are later set aside.
– The appropriateness of seeking interim restraints in appellate proceedings versus the court below.
– The handling of interest issues where ultimate entitlement remains unresolved pending rehearing.
– The limits of caveats where the asserted interest does not support a caveat as a matter of law.

Citation Method

As positive support: when your matter involves repayment following orders being set aside and a dispute about whether the appellate forum should impose interim restraints, citing this authority can strengthen arguments about procedural appropriateness and the need for identified power.
As a distinguishing reference: if the opposing party cites this case to resist restraints, you may distinguish by pointing to a different procedural posture, a different source of power, stronger evidence of dissipation risk, or a context where the orders were sought in the correct interlocutory forum supported by undertakings.

Anonymisation Rule

Do not use real names of parties. Use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent consistently.

---

Conclusion

This case shows that legal power is not only about what you want, but also about where and how you ask. Repayment after orders are set aside is often a direct consequence, but interim restraints require a disciplined legal foundation and the correct procedural pathway. The golden habit is self-agency through procedure: identify the next necessary order, choose the correct forum, and build your relief on authority, evidence, and proportionality.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Cosio & Cosio (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1A 6), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.