Haines & Rader (No 5)

The case of Haines & Rader (No 5) involved proceedings before the Family Court of Australia where the wife sought a declaration that the husband was a vexatious litigant. The matter had a long history of litigation, which was not necessary to detail for the current dispute. The court had already addressed several applications made by the husband in previous judgments, including an application to adjourn the trial and an application to set aside certain orders. The substantive proceedings were heard and concluded, with the husband not attending. The court made orders for both parties to be provided with the trial transcript and for the husband to submit written submissions within 14 days. The husband did not file any submissions, and the court intended to move to judgment. The husband was aware that his failure to submit written submissions would result in judgment being delivered.

The legal issues before the court were whether the husband's failure to file written submissions after being provided with the trial transcript amounted to a failure to disclose relevant information, and whether this failure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court considered whether the husband's failure to file submissions constituted false evidence or a suppression of information, and whether this led to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that failure to disclose relevant information would not be sufficient if the other party was already aware of the information. The court also considered that giving false evidence meant that the person giving the evidence knew it to be false and still provided it. A miscarriage of justice could only occur if circumstances existed that made the order contrary to law and justice according to law as it related to the integrity of the judicial process. The court held that it was not sufficient to merely establish the existence of one or more of the stated grounds, such as suppression of evidence, for a claim under s 79A(1) to succeed.

The court found that the husband's failure to file written submissions did not amount to a failure to disclose relevant information, as the wife was already aware of the husband's absence from the trial and his failure to attend. The court also found that there was no miscarriage of justice as the husband's failure to file written submissions did not produce a flaw in the judicial process. The court held that the husband's failure to file submissions did not lead to a miscarriage of justice as the wife was already aware of the husband's absence from the trial and his failure to attend. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the husband's application to set aside the orders made on 6 September 2022. The court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.