Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 440

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…

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 Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Mavridis & Mavridis (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 440
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 440
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Mavridis, self-represented, applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for leave to reopen proceedings to adduce further evidence in the context of a family law matter. Mr Mavridis opposed the application. The Court was required to determine whether the application should be granted, considering the implications for the interests of justice. The Court also needed to assess whether an adjournment of the judgment delivery, necessitated by the grant of the application, was justified.

The Court considered the timing of the application, which was foreshadowed orally and heard concurrently with the delivery of judgment. The Court weighed the potential impact of granting the application against the overall interests of justice. In its reasoning, the Court concluded that the interests of justice did not favour an adjournment of the judgment delivery. The Court observed that the application was not made in good faith and that the proposed adjournment would be detrimental to the administration of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

In dismissing the application, the Court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The Court held that the proposed adjournment would not serve the interests of justice and that the application was not warranted under the circumstances. The Court's decision reflected a cautious approach to applications made by self-represented litigants, particularly where the timing and implications for the judicial process were concerned.

The Court orders that the application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. The form of the order is subject to review and potential variation as per the relevant rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

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.

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

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