SHARIAsource

Two sons, without consulting their sister, arranged for their mother to sign an Islamic will, with a two thirds share to be distributed to males in the family. The sister disputed the will, stating that the mother was effectively tricked into it. The court bypassed the issue, declaring that the mother died intestate and that consequently, the estate would be distributed by the public trustee in accordance with Australian law. This ensured an equal split. 

The parties, of Lebanese background, were married in Kuwait in 1973, though had moved to Australia in 1985 and maintained dual citizenship. In October 1998 the parties divorced Islamically through a local Islamic centre, then in November 1998 attended the Lebanese embassy and executed a power of attorney to allow their respective lawyers in Lebanon to proceed with the divorce application (and bypass the Australian legal system). These proceedings were not possible in Australia due to the maintenance of a mandatory one year separation period before divorces are granted. The divorce was subsequently granted in November 1998 in the Jaafarite Canonical Court in Lebanon, with the decree that neither party had rights or obligations towards the other. The husband subsequently remarried. 

The wife appealed subsequently applied for a divorce in the Australian courts under s 104(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), stating that this outcome was a denial of natural justice. 

The case stemmed on the recognition of the Lebanese divorce on the grounds that the parties had no 'property of consequence' in Australia (it was in Lebanon, where the wife had initiated court proceedings against the husband) and that the parties sought to bypass Australian law.

This case was unsuccessfully appealed by the applicant in Taffa & Taffa [2012] FamCA 181.

A complaint to the New Zealand Advertising Standards Complaints Board about an arguably Orientalist depiction of a Western woman in an Islamic country for a Lux Body Wash ad. The ruling is of interest for its discussion about the depiction of religion and community standards in New Zealand (at the time) and the level of depth to which the Board went into in response.