January 24, 2026
Legal Hypothetical: barking up the wrong tree

Legal Hypothetical: barking up the wrong tree

BARBARA and Wally have been in a de facto relationship for six years.

There is one child of the relationship, their four-year-old daughter.

When their relationship breaks down, Barbara and Wally seek legal advice and are able to negotiate consent orders, which resolve parenting issues in relation to their child.

They are also able to resolve their property issues, on the basis that they agree to retain the assets in their respective possession and are responsible for any debts and liabilities in their names.

Unfortunately, they are unable to reach agreement regarding one particular item of property, 16-year-old border collie, Wolfie.

Wally seeks specific legal advice relating to his rights regarding Wolfie.

Wally’s solicitor informs him that amendments to the Family Law Act had recently been introduced, relating to companion animals.

These amendments empower the Court to make an order, specifically relating to Wolfie.

Wally concedes that Barbara owned Wolfie before their relationship commenced, but insists that he should be entitled to spend time with Wolfie at the same time that he spends time with their daughter.

Wally proposes that if he is granted time with Wolfie, he will take responsibility for half of all Wolfie’s veterinary costs during the dog’s lifetime.

Barbara opposes Wally’s proposal and he commences action in the Family Court.

Barbara’s barrister, in his submissions to the Court, states that a careful analysis of the legislation reveals that whilst the Court has the power to make orders regarding the ownership of Wolfie, it does not have the power to make any of the orders Wally seeks, which are akin to parenting orders.

Wally’s barrister argues that the Court has a broad discretion to make “ancillary” orders regarding the “use” of “property” owned by the parties.

Given that the legislative provisions regarding companion animals had been recently introduced, the Court conducts a careful examination and treats Wally’s application as a test case.

After a three-day hearing, Wally’s application is denied and the parties pay their own substantial legal costs.

Email Manny Wood, Principal Solicitor and Accredited Specialist in Wills and Estates at TB Law, at manny@tblaw.net.au, or call(02) 66 487 487.

This fictional column is not legal advice.

By Manny WOOD, Solicitor

 

You can help your local paper.

Make a small once-off, or (if you can) a regular donation.

We are an independent family owned business and our newspapers are free to collect and our news stories are free online.

Help support us into the future.