Matten & Munayallan

The appeal concerns the application of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to proceedings that were originally filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales but later transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellant, who was not present at the hearing, contests the dismissal of his application to set aside certain orders made in his absence. The orders in question were issued in relation to proceedings involving a liquidator appointed to a corporation formerly controlled by the appellant, who was declared a vexatious litigant by the Supreme Court. The dispute includes applications for joinder, stay of existing orders, and injunctions against the liquidator dealing with specific funds, as well as requests to vary an interlocutory order made by the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the appellant had a valid basis to appeal the dismissal of his application, and whether there were grounds to excuse his absence from the hearing. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to the proceedings, given the complex procedural history involving both the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The court also needed to evaluate the merits of the applications filed by the various parties, particularly the second application, which sought to vary an existing interlocutory order without adhering to the original undertakings.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the provisions of r 10.13(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), which allows for the setting aside of dismissal orders made in the absence of a party. The court acknowledged the appellant’s right to apply for such relief but emphasised the necessity for the appellant to provide a satisfactory explanation for his absence and to demonstrate good reason to doubt the conclusions reached in his absence. The court further examined the procedural history and the nature of the applications, noting the complexity and the unconventional timing of the filings. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant had not sufficiently justified his absence or provided compelling reasons to doubt the conclusions reached during the hearing. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

The court made no further orders, as the appeal was dismissed on the basis that the appellant had not provided adequate justification for his absence or demonstrated sufficient grounds to doubt the conclusions reached in his absence.