Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC1F 440
•24 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 440
File number(s): SYC 6978 of 2022 Judgment of: ALTOBELLI J Date of judgment: 24 June 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – Where an oral application for leave to reopen proceedings to adduce further evidence is foreshadowed by a self-represented litigant – Where the Court hears the application concurrently with judgment delivery in the same matter – Where granting the application of the self-represented litigant would require an adjournment of the judgment delivery – Where the interests of justice weigh against the grant of such adjournment – Where the Court dismisses the oral application for leave. Cases cited: Gresham & Gresham [2023] FedCFamC1F 49
Mallard & Mallard [2011] FamCA 876
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 9 Date of hearing: 24 June 2025 Place: Sydney The Applicant: Litigant in Person Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Lonsdale of Lonsdale & Associate ORDERS
SYC 6978 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS MAVRIDIS
Applicant
AND: MR MAVRIDIS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALTOBELLI J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The oral application made by the Applicant Mother to adduce further evidence is hereby dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALTOBELLI J:
The matter is listed before me this morning for the purposes of handing down reasons for judgment and making orders in relation to an interim application that I heard recently in this matter. My reasons for judgment are ready to hand down. Yesterday, I was notified of Ms Mavridis’s (“the mother”) intention to file and rely on further material. That notification occurred by way of an email to my Chambers on Monday 23 June 2025 at 4:12 pm. I am going to make that email, and my Chamber’s response, the Court's Exhibit one (C1).
In addition, this morning; Tuesday 24 June 2025 at 8:30 am, there was a further e-mail from the mother which annexed some further material that I will identify. I am going to make this e-mail, the Court's Exhibit two (C2).
The mother asks the Court, in effect, for leave to reopen her evidence and to rely on two further documents. The Court must address this before it can determine her Application in a Proceeding filed 5 May 2025 and Application in a Proceeding filed 7 May 2025, and Mr Mavridis’s (“the father”) Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 16 June 2025. The first document is the mother’s unsworn affidavit that I am going to mark A. I am going to make this document, the Court's Exhibit three (C3). The second document appears to be a document addressed to the Court from Mr B, also known by another name. This document is a two-page letter to the Court containing five annexures, three of which appear to be medical reports in relation to Mr B, and the last of which is correspondence from the entity known as the LECC, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. I am going to make this document the Court's Exhibit four (C4).
An application for leave to reopen is governed by well-established principles that are summarised in a decision of mine called Gresham & Gresham [2023] FedCFamC1F 49, delivered on 10 February 2023. At paragraph [10] of those reasons for judgment I refer to a decision of Fowler J, where he sets out the relevant law and explains that the discretion of the Court to reopen and allow fresh evidence takes into account a number of considerations (Mallard & Mallard [2011] FamCA 876 at [91]–[92]).
The first of these is that the fresh evidence was not easily available at the time of the trial and could not be discovered despite the exercise of due diligence. Clearly, the further evidence sought to be relied on by Mr B does not fall into this category. He refers to medical reports, which go back quite some time preceding the 20 June 2025 interim hearing. In circumstances where the mother was on notice of the father’s intention to raise the appropriateness of any participation by Mr B in these proceedings, there was ample opportunity to cause this information to be filed. So, clearly none of this evidence demonstrates; on its face, why it could not have been relied on and filed at the appropriate time.
The second consideration is that the fresh evidence is so material that the interests of justice require it. The material in question, neither the mother's unsworn affidavit (Exhibit C3), nor these further documents (Exhibit C4), is so material that the interests of justice require it.
The next consideration is that the fresh evidence would most probably affect the result of the trial. The focus, of course, is on the interim proceedings. There is nothing here that falls into that category.
The last consideration is that there would be no prejudice to the other party by reason of its introduction at a late point in time. As the solicitor for the father has submitted this morning, this material hasn't even been served on her. The prejudice to the father of allowing this fresh evidence to be admitted for the purposes of the interim hearing would be prejudice that could only be overcome by the granting of an adjournment, and therefore the postponement of delivery of reasons for judgment.
None of those matters are appropriate on the facts of this case. The application for leave to reopen and adduce further evidence is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Altobelli. Associate:
Dated: 30 June 2025
0
2
0