Marsden & Winch

The parties in this matter were the father and the mother, with the father seeking to enforce previous property orders and recommence proceedings concerning children. The mother cross-applied to have the father declared a vexatious litigant. The proceedings were heard by Faulks DCJ.

The court was required to determine whether the father's application to enforce previous property orders should be granted, given a subsequent decline in the property's value. It also had to consider whether the father's application to recommence children's proceedings was permissible, particularly in light of previous decisions upheld on appeal, and whether the mother's cross-application to declare the father a vexatious litigant should succeed. Finally, the court needed to make orders regarding costs.

His Honour dismissed the father's applications concerning both property and children. Regarding the property, the court held that a subsequent change in the value of property did not permit a previously made decision to be revisited. In relation to the children's proceedings, the court applied the principles from *Rice v Asplund*, finding that the passing of time did not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to justify recommencing proceedings, and that doing so would not be in the child's best interests. The mother's cross-application was also dismissed, as the current proceedings were not found to be vexatious or frivolous.

The father was ordered to pay $2,750 towards the mother's costs. Further, by agreement between the parties, the father was to pay a total of $21,750 to the mother's solicitors by a specified date. If this payment was made, the National Australia Bank was directed to release funds from a particular account to the father upon maturity. If the father failed to make the payment, the total amount due would be withdrawn from the NAB account and paid to the mother, with any balance to the father. There was no order for costs in relation to the mother's application to declare the father a vexatious litigant.