Herbert and Herbert (No 3)

In the matter of *Herbert and Herbert (No 3)*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the applicant wife, Ms Herbert, alleging contravention and contempt of interim and final parenting orders by the respondent husband, Mr Herbert. The respondent husband sought the summary dismissal of these applications. The court also addressed the applicant wife's separate application for a stay of final property orders pending her appeal, and the respondent husband's request for costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's contravention and contempt applications had no reasonable prospect of success and should be summarily dismissed, and whether the applicant had a sufficient basis to be granted a stay of certain final property orders pending her appeal. Additionally, the court was required to determine if the applicant's conduct warranted a vexatious proceedings order and whether the respondent was entitled to costs.

Forrest J summarily dismissed the applicant's contravention and contempt applications pursuant to s 45A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), finding they were hopeless and doomed to fail. The court was satisfied that the applicant had frequently instituted vexatious proceedings and, pursuant to s 102QB(2) of the Act, prohibited her from instituting further contravention or contempt proceedings against the respondent without first obtaining leave of the court. While granting a partial stay of specific paragraphs of the final property orders pending the wife's appeal, the court noted that this would impact the husband's ability to borrow funds to meet a payment obligation to the wife. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $3,936.23, to be offset against any sums the respondent might be ordered to pay the applicant.