Baros & Baros

In *Baros & Baros*, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for the summary dismissal of the husband's application. The husband had brought an application pursuant to s 79A(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), alleging that the wife had caused emails to be sent to his employer, resulting in his unemployment, in breach of a provision within the parties' 2019 consent orders that prevented the wife from contacting his employers. The wife sought summary dismissal on the basis that the husband's application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband's application under s 79A(1)(c) had no reasonable prospect of success, thereby justifying summary dismissal under s 45A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and rule 10.12 of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). This required the court to assess whether there were significant factual disputes that necessitated a final hearing, particularly concerning the interpretation of the consent orders and the wife's alleged conduct.

Harper J found that the wife's application for summary dismissal could not succeed. The court determined that the husband's application, based on the wife's alleged breach of a central provision of the consent orders, raised factual disputes that required determination at a final hearing. The judge noted that the broad and open-ended nature of the "just and equitable" consideration under s 79A(1) made it inherently difficult to resolve on a summary basis, and that the wife's submissions actually exposed the need for a final hearing. Consequently, the wife's application for summary dismissal was dismissed.

The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs of and incidental to her dismissed application, as she had been wholly unsuccessful. The matter was then referred back to the Docket Registrar for further case management.