Rachael Murray - Partner

Rachael Murray Rachael advises on family law disputes, collaborative law and mediation.

Overview Experience Publications Contact

 A member of HopgoodGanim Lawyers' Family Law practice since 2002, Rachael prides herself on her ability to understand the individual needs of her clients and resolve their matters using the method that best suits their circumstances while achieving an optimal result. She is trained in both collaborative law and mediation in addition to being an experienced litigator in the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court.

Rachael has particular expertise and interest in:

  • Cases involving parties’ interests in corporate and trust structures.
  • Working with high net wealth individuals, their children and other professional advisors with respect to their relationship planning by use of binding financial agreements.
  • Complex parenting matters involving drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues or special needs (particularly matters involving autism/aspergers and other spectrumal disorders).
  • International parenting matters, including abduction matters and applications for leave to relocate the residence of children outside of Australia
  • Litigation between a party to a marriage and an estate where matrimonial or de facto proceedings were instituted before the death of one of the parties.

Client education, mediation, collaboration and other non court based dispute resolution underpins Rachael’s management of family law matters.

Rachael is ranked by Doyles Guide to the Australian Legal Profession in Leading Family & Divorce Lawyers – Brisbane in 2016, 2017 and 2018, as well as named in Leading Parenting & Children’s Matters Lawyers – Queensland, 2018. Rachael is also listed by the Australian Financial Review in Best Lawyers in Australia - 2018 and 2019 for Family Law, and was named 2019 Brisbane Lawyer of the Year in Family Law. Educated at Griffith University, Rachael holds qualifications in Laws (Honours) and Commerce (Politics and Public Policy). Rachael is a member of the Family Law Practitioner’s Association, Queensland Collaborative Law and is the family law section representative for the HopgoodGanim Lawyers’ Agribusiness team. 

Areas of Practice

Mendicino & Mendicino & Ors: Rachael was the lead lawyer in this complex piece of litigation surrounding whether her client was possessed of an interest in a trust that was property which was capable of division between the parties. This matter resulted in eight judgments being published by the Family Court, including:

  • Mendicino & Mendicino & Ors (No 3) Fam CA 440 – Rachael was successful in upholding a claim of legal professional privilege on behalf of her client in circumstances where a third party to the proceedings had waived privilege in relation to a particular class of documents. The Court accepted Rachael’s argument that the advice provided could not be independently waived in circumstances where it was jointly held between the respondents and that no issue of implied waiver could be established in respect of the documents sought.
  • Mendicino & Mendicino & Ors (No 6) [2015] Fam CA 553 – Rachael successfully opposed an application for leave by the wife to adduce adversarial evidence in relation to the value of the husband’s interests in the relevant trust, arguing that it was not demonstrated that the expert had “specialised knowledge” linked to the opinions relied upon, and that the opinion was therefore inadmissible.

Randle & Randle [2012] Fam CA 59: Rachael acted for the mother in a very complex parenting matter which attracted national and international media attention. It involved the unauthorised removal of a young child from the United Arab Emirates to Australia. It was necessary to manage and co-ordinate proceedings convened in both the Family Court in Australia and the Sharia Court in Dubai. The Australian Court found on an interim basis that a determination of parenting issues in Australia was in the best interests of the child. At the conclusion of the trial the Court made significant credit findings against the father (an Australian) and it was determined that best interests considerations weighed heavily in favour of returning the child to the United Arab Emirates.