Marvin and Blink

In the matter of *Marvin and Blink*, heard before Judge Small, the dispute concerned an Initiating Application filed by the Father on 4 April 2017. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates it involved allegations or circumstances requiring the application of the Rule in *Rice v Asplund*.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Father's Initiating Application should be dismissed. The court was also required to consider the conditions under which the Father might be at liberty to file a future application and the consequences of contravening the court's orders.

Judge Small dismissed the Father's Initiating Application pursuant to the Rule in *Rice v Asplund*, which generally prevents a party from bringing successive applications on the same subject matter without leave. The court granted the Father liberty to file a new Initiating Application from 1 February 2019, but this was contingent upon him filing affidavits from his current treating therapists addressing his sexual offending, general mental health issues, and drug and alcohol abuse. All other pending applications were dismissed, and the proceedings were removed from the pending cases list. The court also noted that the particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders were set out in Annexure A, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975*.