Mankiewicz and Anor & Swallow and Anor

The maternal great-grandparents, Mankiewicz and Swallow, appealed against the dismissal of their application to spend time with their great-grandchildren, and the imposition of a vexatious proceedings order. The appeal was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The great-grandparents had previously been found to lack standing to apply for parenting orders, but had subsequently instituted parenting proceedings on the same facts and seeking the same orders. The primary judge dismissed the proceedings and restrained the appellants from instituting further parenting proceedings under s 102QB(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The appellants argued that the primary judge did not have jurisdiction to determine their fresh application, but the court found that the orders were made within the court's jurisdiction and power. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' indemnity costs in the amount of $15,000.

The legal issues before the court were whether the great-grandparents had standing to institute parenting proceedings, and whether the primary judge had jurisdiction to determine their fresh application. The court considered sections 65C(c) and 102QB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which provide for the court's jurisdiction and power to make orders in parenting proceedings, and to restrain parties from instituting further proceedings. The court found that the primary judge had jurisdiction to determine the fresh application, and that the orders were made within the court's jurisdiction and power. The court also found that the primary judge's exercise of discretion was not in error, and that the findings were open.

The court dismissed the appeal and made orders that all outstanding applications in the appeal be dismissed, and that the appellants pay the respondents' indemnity costs in the amount of $15,000 within three months of the date of the orders. The court found that the appellants were wholly unsuccessful on appeal, and that the circumstances justified an order for indemnity costs. The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court's records.