Meadis & Evenson

[2024] FedCFamC1F 836

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Meadis & Evenson [2024] FedCFamC1F 836

File number(s):

MLC 11084 of 2024

Judgment of:

BENNETT J

Date of judgment:

6 December 2024

Catchwords:

 FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where party is subject to vexatious proceeding order in one relationship applies for leave to institute proceedings in another relationship – leave granted

Legislation:

 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Division:

Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs:

7

Date of hearing:

6 December 2024

Place:

Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant:

Litigant in Person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Did not participate

ORDERS

MLC 11084 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR MEADIS

Applicant

AND:

MS EVENSON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.I grant leave to the applicant, Mr Meadis, to institute property proceedings against Ms Evenson.

2.My reasons for decision be transcribed and when transcribed made available to the parties.

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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ex-tempore

BENNETT J

1. The applicant, Mr Meadis, makes an ex-parte application for leave to institute proceedings notwithstanding that he is subject to a vexatious proceedings order.

2. On 30 September 2022, I made orders finalising trial proceedings between Mr Meadis and Ms Meadis, including:

   1. Pursuant to s102QB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from instituting proceedings under the Act in a Court having jurisdiction under the Act without first obtaining leave of the Court to do so. This order does not apply to:-

   a. any costs application of the Father arising from these orders, filed within the time prescribed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021,

   b. any appeal from these orders, provided such appeal is filed within the time prescribed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 or such other time as is permitted by Order of the Full Court, or

   c. an application made by the father, within three (3) months of the date of this Order to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, seeking leave to enable him to provide a copy of the transcript of proceedings. Nothing in this order shall impose any obligation upon the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to provide or pay for the cost of provision of that transcript.

3. Notably, the order follows the general wording of the legislation and does not specify that the prohibition against further proceedings without leave pertains only to proceedings between the parties to the proceedings or the child(ren) with which the proceedings were concerned.

4. Mr Meadis has subsequently entered into another relationship, which I presume he says is now over, and he wishes to institute property proceedings against that partner, Ms Evenson.

5. The legislation provides in s 102QB(4) that the Court shall not make an order prohibiting proceedings without leave unless the Court has heard from the parties affected by it. I have not heard from Mr Meadis in relation to proceedings with Ms Evenson, and I have not heard from Ms Evenson in relation to proceedings with Mr Meadis. My observation, and a matter for which I take responsibility, is that it would have been more helpful to have the order that I made in 2022 confined to proceedings between Mr Meadis, Ms Meadis and the children of that relationship.

6. Of course, it will be open to Ms Evenson, if she wishes to and thinks she can make out a case under the legislation, to seek an order prohibiting Mr Meadis from taking further proceedings against her without leave, but we are a long way from that.

7. The Registry should process Mr Meadis’ application. A copy of these reasons should be sent by the Registry to Ms Meadis and Ms Evenson.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

Associate:

Dated:       10 December 2024