Feranti and Connor (No. 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FERANTI & CONNOR (NO. 2) [2007] FamCA 1447

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION PROCEEDINGS - CHILD AND PROPERTY ORDERS - SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Bain Pacific Associations & Ors and Kelly & Ors (2006) FLC 93-270
Tansell and Tansell (1977) FLC 90-307

APPLICANT: Mr Feranti

RESPONDENT: Ms Connor

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10368 of 1994

DATE DELIVERED: 12 November 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: WATT J

HEARING DATE: 29, 30 June 2005

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Applicant in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Wood

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Peter Falconer & Associates

Orders

1. The father’s application for contravention filed 4 February 2005 as amended by his application for contravention filed 26 April 2005 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Feranti v Connor is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 10368  of 1994

MR FERANTI

Applicant

And

MS CONNOR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction - summary dismissal of contravention applications

1. The father filed an Application – Contravention on 14 February 2005 and he later amended this application by filing an amended Application – Contravention on 26 April 2005. All references to the father’s application hereafter are to the later document.

1. My judgment delivered 26 October 2007 outlines the history of the hearing of the father’s application: see paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of that judgment. In respect of the contraventions alleged in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Part D of the father’s application, that judgment states my findings on the basis of which those paragraphs will be dismissed. I will now turn to the remaining paragraphs of Part D of the father’s application being paragraphs 4 to 8. Paragraphs 1 to 3 contained allegations of contraventions of the orders of Brown J made 2 and 16 February 2004. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the father’s application allege contraventions of orders predating Brown J’s orders.

1. The mother sought summary dismissal of those allegations set out in paragraphs 4 to 8 primarily on the basis that each of them amounted to an abuse of process when seen in the context of the long history of proceedings between these parties, including proceedings where the same issues had been raised and dealt with, or could and should have been raised. It can also be seen that she was asserting that these allegations lacked bona fides and were intended to cause the respondent mother expense and inconvenience. To this extent it can also be said that the mother’s case was that the alleged contraventions in respect of which she sought summary dismissal were vexatious. Submissions based on the principles of res judicata or issue estoppel (or both) might well have been available to the mother in respect of some of the contraventions alleged in paragraphs 4 to 8, but these were not argued in any detail.

1. The father’s opposition to summary dismissal was based, in substantial part, on his…