Dobbs & Dobbs (No 2)

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was asked to consider an oral application made by the respondent in relation to a Contravention Application filed by the applicant. The Contravention Application was brought in relation to an appeal against final orders made in proceedings between the parties, which were subsequently dismissed. The applicant alleged that the respondent had deliberately delayed transferring his interest in a real property to her, which she claimed was in contravention of the final orders. The respondent had made an oral application that the remaining count of the Contravention Application be struck out or summarily dismissed. The Court was required to determine whether the Contravention Application was an abuse of process, whether there were no reasonable prospects of success of the Contravention Application, and whether there were deficiencies in the pleading.

The Court determined that the applicant was not estopped from bringing the Contravention Application, and that it was not appropriate to summarily dismiss or strike out the application. The Court noted that the applicant had not pursued the relief available to her as a result of the order made pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act, which appointed a Registrar to sign the necessary documents to effect a transfer of the property to the applicant. The Court also noted that the respondent had executed documents to enable the transfer of the property to the applicant, but there were issues with the manner in which the documents had been signed, and the bank refused to accept them. The Court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success of the Contravention Application, and that there were deficiencies in the pleading. However, the Court did not find that the Contravention Application was an abuse of process.

The oral application made by the respondent that the remaining count of the Contravention Application be struck out or summarily dismissed was dismissed. The matter was adjourned to 1 July 2024 for a one-day hearing commencing at 10.00 am. The Court made several orders in relation to the filing and service of documents, and the resolution of objections. The Court noted that an order for costs may be made on the initiative of the Court against a lawyer if the lawyer, or an employee or agent of the lawyer, has caused costs to be incurred by a party, or to be thrown away, because of unreasonable conduct or undue delay.

The Court ordered that the oral application by the respondent that count 3 of the Contravention Application filed 22 January 2020 be struck out and/or summarily dismissed is dismissed. The matter was adjourned to 1 July 2024 for a one-day hearing commencing at 10.00 am. The Court made several orders in relation to the filing and service of documents, and the resolution of objections. The Court noted that an order for costs may be made on the initiative of the Court against a lawyer if the lawyer, or an employee or agent of the lawyer, has caused costs to be incurred by a party, or to be thrown away, because of unreasonable conduct or undue delay.