Bendon & Bendon

In the matter of *Bendon & Bendon*, McEvoy J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother to re-open parenting proceedings and make new parenting orders, despite previous final orders made in 2015 and 2017. The father sought to strike out the mother's application, arguing it was hopeless and unsupported by evidence, and also sought a vexatious proceedings order against the mother.

The court was required to determine whether the mother's application met the threshold test for re-opening proceedings under the principles established in *Rice & Asplund*, which requires evidence of a material change in circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the mother's conduct in initiating and conducting litigation since 2014 warranted a vexatious proceedings order under section 102QB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether the mother should be ordered to pay the father's costs.

McEvoy J found that the mother had failed to provide any evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances since the last parenting orders were made, and therefore her application did not meet the *Rice & Asplund* threshold. Consequently, the mother's application to re-open proceedings was dismissed. The court also found that the mother had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in relation to parenting issues, leading to the making of a vexatious proceedings order against her under section 102QB. Furthermore, the mother's conduct and her complete lack of success in her applications justified an order for her to pay the father's costs on a party-party basis.

The court ordered that the mother be restrained from instituting further proceedings for parenting orders without leave of the Court, and that she pay the father's costs. The orders also addressed the property settlement between the parties, including provisions for the refinance and transfer of real property, or its sale if the refinance did not occur by a specified date.