False Testimony in Family Law: An Imprisonable Offence

In Family Law, we often see cases where one party alleges that the other has withheld critical disclosure and/or has provided false testimony to the court. That parties have a duty not to lie to the court goes without saying, however people tend to be a lot less clear on the duty of disclosure. In Family Law Proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), the parties have an ongoing duty to provide to each other all documents and information relevant to issues in the case. This duty is part of the FCFCOA’s pre-action procedures, and the parties are required to have exchanged disclosure before commencing legal proceedings in the FCFCOA.

In Parenting Proceedings, the parties are required to make a full and frank disclosure of any and all information relevant to the parenting matter. The information and documents that the parties will be required to disclose will vary on a case-by-case basis. For example, the parties may be required to disclose any medical reports for either the child or themselves, school reports for the child or even the child’s drawings and letters. 

In Financial Proceedings, the parties are required to disclose all of their sources of earnings, interest, income, property (vested or contingent interests) and other financial resources they have. Parties are also required to disclose whether they have disposed of a property after separation or in the year prior to the date of separation.

Failure to comply with their duty of disclosure, can land the non-compliant party in hot water, with the FCFCOA empowered to make a number of orders to penalise the non-compliant party. These orders currently range from the Court refusing to allow the non-compliant party to use undisclosed materials as evidence, staying or dismissing some or all of the case, ordering the non-compliant party to pay costs, fine the non-compliant party or even order their imprisonment.

From 10 June 2025, the duty of disclosure will move from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Court will have access to a broader range of consequences for non-compliance. In addition to the consequences for non-compliance available to the Court under the legislation, the Court can also report instances of criminal behaviour, such as forging documents, tax evasion, lying under oath or embezzlement to the Department of Public Prosecution, for the Department to consider prosecuting.

Sutton & Lasko & Anor (No.5)*

The matter of Sutton & Lasko & Anor began on 6 September 2017, when Mr Sutton filed for property and parenting orders. At the time of filing Ms Lasko, was Mr Sutton’s de-facto wife and they had two children together, having met in 2009, began living together in 2011 and separating in July 2017.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr Sutton’s refusal to provide full and frank financial disclosure made it very difficult for the court to determine the true value of the asset pool. This and Mr Sutton’s later actions seriously impacted his creditability before the court.

In addition to his refusal to provide financial disclosure, Mr Sutton also deliberately mislead the court and forged bank statements to support his claims. More specifically, Mr Sutton claimed that he had begun the sale of one of his overseas businesses for $9 million in 2011, well before he began living with Ms Lasko, and provided bank account statements from April 2013 showing the proceeds of sale being slowly transferred to Australia over the course of 5 years, with the transfers beginning in April 2013. This would mean that the proceeds of the sale would not be included in the asset pool.

However, it was soon discovered by Ms Lasko, that the provided bank statements were actually April 2017 bank statements that had been altered to change the date from 2017 to 2013. Because the sale of the business occurred during the relationship, with the transfer of funds beginning in 2017, the $9 million from the sale of the business formed part of the asset pool.

When challenged on the forgery, Mr Sutton stated that his accountant had provided him with the bank statements and that he denied altering the dates. In response Mr Sutton’s accountant advised the court that neither he nor any of his employees had been asked to provide Mr Sutton with his bank statements and that Mr Sutton had previously falsified other electronic records. On review of the accountant’s evidence, the Court determined that Mr Sutton had forged the bank statements and then gave false evidence about having done so.

Criminal Law Consequences

As Mr Sutton had falsified documents and provided false evidence to the court, the Court provided a copy of the Reasons for Judgement and a transcript of the entire proceedings to the Department of Public Prosecutions “DPP” for the DPP to consider whether to prosecute Mr Sutton. 

The Australian Federal Police investigated the matter and determined that Mr Sutton had provided falsified bank statements to the FCFCOA, concealed over $4 million worth of assets and lied to the FCFCOA about when a business had been sold by forging bank statements, emails and documents.

 The Mr Sutton’s forged documents suggested that the sale of a business had occurred before the start of his relationships with Ms Lasko, which would prevent the proceeds of the sale of the business from being included in the asset pool that the Court would have available to distribute.

On 24 August 2023, Mr Sutton was charged with having given false testimony in a federal judicial proceeding and of having fabricated evidence in a federal judicial proceeding. On 3 April 2025, the County Court of Victoria sentenced Mr Sutton to 18 months imprisonment, with Mr Sutton to spend 6 months in prison before being released on a good behaviour bond for the next 3 years. If Mr Sutton breaches his good behaviour bond in that time period, then, he will be imprisoned to serve the remaining 12 months of his sentence. The specific conditions of a good behaviour bond depend on the individual circumstances.

Key Takeaway

Failure to comply with your duty of disclosure in family law proceedings can have serious consequences for the non-compliant party.  

Voice Lawyers: Your Guide in Family Law Matters

This update is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need help dealing with a parenting dispute or require assistance with a family law matter, at Voice Lawyers, we hear you. 

If you are experiencing or contemplating separation, we suggest you seek legal advice as early as you can, even if you do not intend to separate for a few months or even years. We offer a 90 minutes early separation strategy session Voice Lawyers — Divorce, Separation and Family Law to prepare and inform clients of the process. Every family’s situation is different, and advice tailored to your specific circumstances can assist you in achieving your best possible outcome. We can assist if you would like a second opinion.

We help people navigate the complexities of family law with confident, practical advice. You can contact us at office@voicelawyers.com or call 02 9261 1954 to book a consultation to speak with one of our lawyers. 

*Names anonymised by the Court

 By Enda Byrne