Law Society Northern Territory; PublicationNT; E-Journals
This publication contains many links to external sites. These external sites may no longer be active.; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).; Celebrating 50 years 1968 - 2018 Law Society NT
Law -- Northern Territory -- Periodicals.; Law Society of the Northern Territory -- Periodicals.
Law Society Northern Territory
Issue no. 1
Law Society Northern Territory
N O T I C E B O A R D L A W S O C I E T Y N T  The treatment can no longer be considered a medical procedure for which consent lies outside the bounds of parental authority and requires the imprimatur of the Court. ()  We note though that we are not saying anything about the need for court authorisation where the child in question is under the care of a State Government Department. Nor, are we saying anything about the need for court authorisation where there is a genuine dispute or controversy as to whether the treatment should be administered; e.g. if the parents, or the medical professionals are unable to agree. There is no doubt that the Court has the jurisdiction and the power to address issues such as those. Ainslie-Wallace & Ryan JJ (at -) agreed upon different reasoning. F I N A N C I A L A G R E E M E N T S No provision for husband who murdered wife after she began property proceedings In Neubert (Deceased) & Neubert and Anor (No. 2)  FamCA 829 (18 October 2017) the wife was murdered by the husband in 2015 after the ending of the parties eighteen-year marriage in 2014 when the wife began property proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court, later transferred to the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings were continued by the wifes estate. When the husband shot the wife dead he also shot a friend of hers with whom the wife was travelling, permanently injuring her. The friend, who intervened in the case, brought civil proceedings in which she was awarded damages of $2.3m which with taxed costs and interest amounted to a judgment debt of $2.5m. The husband was found guilty of murder and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment and a cumulative three-year sentence for the grievous bodily harm of the intervenor. The husband was seventyfive years old and ineligible for parole until he was almost 90. Benjamin J accepted (at ) that at the date of the wifes death the Court would have made an order in her favour for the purpose of s 79(8) of the Family Law Act, saying () that there should be an adjustment ... in the light of the findings as to the parties respective contributions, including the husbands significant initial contributions [land sold during the marriage for $590 000, savings $100 000 and shares $300 000]. [having] regard to the size of the pool [$2 168 153 excluding the damages]. His Honour () assessed contributions as to 35 per cent to the late wife and 65 per cent to the husband, ordering that the husbands share be paid to the intervenor and set off against the judgment debt. The Court then (at ) reiterated the statement of Coleman J in Homsy & Yassa and Yassa; the Public Trustee (1994) FLC 92-442 that the husband, having murdered the late wife, cannot have the benefit of the s 75(2) factors and that [t]o do so would be offensive to justice and equity.