Darley (No 5)

In the matter of Darley (No 5), the applicant, who is the mother of two children, sought leave to appeal against two decisions of the primary judge. The first decision pertained to procedural orders that had been made during the parenting trial, and the second decision related to parenting orders that had been made after the trial. The applicant also sought to reopen the proceedings to adduce further evidence in the form of affidavits. The court had to determine whether the proposed appeals had reasonable grounds and if allowing the appeals would serve any utility.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the proposed grounds of appeal identified genuine grounds of appeal pertaining to legal or discretionary error. The court had to consider if the appeals were vexatious and devoid of utility, as appeals are not typically allowed even if the grounds of appeal contain some merit if there would be no known utility in allowing the appeal.

The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal largely failed to identify genuine grounds of appeal pertaining to legal or discretionary error. The court concluded that the proposed appeals were misconceived and lacked reasonable grounds. The appeals were deemed to be vexatious under section 102QF(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and therefore, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed under section 102QF(2) of the Act. Consequently, leave to institute the appeal was refused, and the applications in an appeal were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that leave to institute the appeal was refused, and both applications in an appeal were dismissed. This decision reinforces the principle that appeals are not permitted if they lack reasonable grounds and would be devoid of utility.