Matthews & Norris (No. 3) - [2018] FamCA 803

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATTHEWS & NORRIS (NO. 3)

[2018] FamCA 803

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious proceedings – where the father sought an order pursuant to section 102QB(2) prohibiting the mother from instituting further proceedings under the Act on the basis the mother had frequently instituted proceedings in an Australian Court and has failed to prosecute some of those applications – where the mother has brought 15 applications against the father in respect of property and parenting – where parenting has been determined on a final basis – where the mother has made applications where she had little prospect of success – where the father has been awarded costs orders or had costs reserved – where the Court is satisfied that the mother has filed some vexatious applications – where the parties’ applications for adjustment of interest in property are yet to be determined – where a vexatious proceedings order has the capacity to disadvantage the mother who is self-representing and could delay final hearing to the disadvantage of both parties – application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 102QB

Pencious & Searle [2017] FamCAFC 210
Potier & Attorney General (NSW) [2015] 89 NSWLR 284
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy & Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398

APPLICANT:

Mr Matthews

RESPONDENT:

Ms Norris

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

2226

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

5 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Carty

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Oliver Campbell Heslop Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Not Applicable

THE RESPONDENT:

Representing herself

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Not Applicable

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Scally

Orders

The Application in a Case filed by the husband on 23 May 2018 is dismissed.
The Response to an Application in a Case filed by the wife on 25 July 2018 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Matthews & Norris (No. 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC 2226 of 2015

Mr Matthews

Applicant

And

Ms Norris

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by the husband, Mr Matthews, filed 23 May 2018, for a vexatious proceedings order to be made pursuant to section 102QB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), restraining the wife, Ms Norris.
This application, together with three others, came before…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Matthews & Norris (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: Matthews & Norris (No 3) [2018] FamCA 803
Case: [2018] FamCA 803
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Matthews & Norris (No. 3)*, Cleary J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed by the husband and a response filed by the wife. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved proceedings initiated by both the husband and the wife.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the application filed by the husband and the response filed by the wife. The specific legal questions before the court would have related to the merits of each party's claims or requests within the broader family law proceedings.

Cleary J dismissed both the husband's application and the wife's response. No orders were made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in a Case filed by the husband on 23 May 2018 is dismissed.

The Response to an Application in a Case filed by the wife on 25 July 2018 is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.