Bruin & Bruin (No 4) - [2024] FedCFamC2F 870

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bruin & Bruin (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 870

File number(s): MLC 1939 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE MANSINI

Date of judgment: 8 July 2024

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – mother’s application to reopen parenting proceedings within 3 weeks of final orders met with responsive application for harmful proceedings orders pursuant to s.102QAC – consideration of alleged financial and emotional forms of harm, history of instituting and conduct in child-related proceedings and cumulative or potential cumulative effect of resultant harm – reasonable grounds to believe that the father would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him and that the children would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him – harmful proceedings orders made.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – where one parent commenced these proceedings and the other parent continued them – consideration of relevant factors – respective costs applications dismissed.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.4(1), 95, 117, 102QAC, 102QAE, 102QAG, 102QB

Cases cited:
Bruin & Bruin [2024] FedCFamC2F 102

Bruin & Bruin (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 176

Bruin & Bruin (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 380

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 76

Date of hearing: 27 June 2024

Place: Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant: Juno Family Law

Solicitor for the Respondent: Coote Family Lawyers
ORDERS

MLC 1939 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR BRUIN

Applicant

AND:
MS BRUIN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANSINI

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant mother have leave to discontinue her application filed 4 March 2024.
2.The Applicant mother be prohibited from instituting parenting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) against the Respondent father without such leave of the Court as may be granted under s.102QAG of the Act.
3.In the event that the Applicant mother makes an application under s.102QAE for leave to institute proceedings that are subject to order 2 herein, the Respondent father shall not be notified by the Court that such application has been made and/or if such application has been dismissed.
4.The costs applications be dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bruin & Bruin (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Bruin & Bruin (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 870
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 870
Decision Date: 8 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bruin & Bruin (No 4), the mother applied to discontinue her application to reopen parenting proceedings and to seek leave to institute further proceedings against the father. The father, in turn, filed a responsive application for harmful proceedings orders under section 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This case was heard in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, with Judge Mansini presiding over the matter. The court had to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the father or the children would suffer harm if the mother were permitted to institute further proceedings against the father.

The court considered the history of the proceedings, the nature and conduct of the mother's actions, and the alleged financial and emotional harm that could result from further proceedings. It was established that the mother had a history of instituting and continuing child-related proceedings, which had the potential to cause cumulative harm to the father and the children. The court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the father would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings, and that the children would also suffer harm if such proceedings were allowed to proceed.

Judge Mansini concluded that the making of harmful proceedings orders under section 102QAG of the Family Law Act was appropriate to prevent potential harm to the father and the children. The court made orders prohibiting the mother from instituting further parenting proceedings against the father without leave of the court. Additionally, the court decided that in the event the mother applied for leave to institute further proceedings, the father should not be notified by the court of such application or of any dismissal. The court dismissed the respective costs applications from both parties, with no orders as to costs.

The final orders of the court were that the mother's application to discontinue her proceedings be granted, and she be prohibited from instituting further proceedings against the father without leave of the court. If the mother applied for leave to institute further proceedings, the father was not to be notified by the court of such application or any dismissal. The costs applications from both parties were dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 1939 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR BRUIN

Applicant

AND:

MS BRUIN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANSINI

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant mother have leave to discontinue her application filed 4 March 2024.

2. The Applicant mother be prohibited from instituting parenting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) against the Respondent father without such leave of the Court as may be granted under s.102QAG of the Act.

3. In the event that the Applicant mother makes an application under s.102QAE for leave to institute proceedings that are subject to order 2 herein, the Respondent father shall not be notified by the Court that such application has been made and/or if such application has been dismissed.

4. The costs applications be dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	MLC 1939 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE MANSINI
Date of judgment:	8 July 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting – mother’s application to reopen parenting proceedings within 3 weeks of final orders met with responsive application for harmful proceedings orders pursuant to s.102QAC – consideration of alleged financial and emotional forms of harm, history of instituting and conduct in child-related proceedings and cumulative or potential cumulative effect of resultant harm – reasonable grounds to believe that the father would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him and that the children would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him – harmful proceedings orders made. FAMILY LAW – Costs – where one parent commenced these proceedings and the other parent continued them – consideration of relevant factors – respective costs applications dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.4(1), 95, 117, 102QAC, 102QAE, 102QAG, 102QB
Cases cited:	Bruin & Bruin [2024] FedCFamC2F 102 Bruin & Bruin (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 176 Bruin & Bruin (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 380
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	76
Date of hearing:	27 June 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Juno Family Law
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Coote Family Lawyers

MLC 1939 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR BRUIN Applicant
AND:	MS BRUIN Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANSINI
DATE OF ORDER:	8 JULY 2024