Meadows & Meadows (No 4) - [2020] FamCA 864

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 4)

[2020] FamCA 864

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Institution of proceedings – where the father seeks vexatious proceedings orders pursuant to s 102Q prohibiting the mother from instituting proceedings without leave of the Court – whether proceedings commenced by the mother were vexatious within the meaning of the Act – where proceedings commenced by the mother since 28 April 2020 and after final orders were made in 2019 are an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined – whether vexatious proceedings were instituted frequently within the meaning of the Act – mother prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Act, other than in relation to any costs application, an appeal or leave to appeal, seeking a transcript of proceedings, or filing a response, without leave of the Court.

Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Act 2012 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 45A(4), 102Q, 102QB, 102QE, 102QG
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Attorney General (NSW) v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481.

Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Cannon & Acres [2014] FamCA 104
Meadows & Meadows (No 2) [2020] FamCA 325
Meadows & Meadows (No 4) [2019] FamCA 745
Meadows & Meadows (No 5) [2019] FamCA 848
Marsden & Winch (2013) FLC 93-560
Vlug & Poulos (1997) FLC 92-778
Re Attorney-General; Ex Parte Skyring (1996) 135 ALR 29
Watson & Morton (2007) FLC 93-331

APPLICANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

14 October 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Henderson J

HEARING DATE:

6 July 2020 and 9 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

The mother is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“ the Act”) against or in relation to the father Mr Meadows or the child B without first having been granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QD of the Act.
This vexatious proceeding order does not apply to:
(a)Any cost application of the mother arising from these Orders and filed within the time prescribed under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Family Law Rules 2004;
(b)Any appeal from these Orders provided such appeal is filed within the time prescribed under the Family Law Rules 2004 or such other time as is permitted by order of the Full Court;
(c)An application made by the mother to the Family Court to provide the mother with a copy of the transcript of proceedings heard before Justice Henderson; and
(d)The filing of a response or affidavit in reply by the mother.
IT IS NOTED the particular consequences arising from a vexatious proceedings order are set out in s 102QD of the Act, which provides:-
(a)If a person is subject to a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular type, under this…

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 Meadows & Meadows (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Meadows & Meadows (No 4) [2020] FamCA 864
Case: [2020] FamCA 864
Decision Date: 14 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Meadows & Meadows (No 4)*, the father sought orders under section 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to prohibit the mother from instituting further proceedings. The dispute centred on whether proceedings commenced by the mother since April 2020, and following final orders made in 2019, constituted vexatious litigation. The father argued these actions were an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined by the court.

The central legal issue before Henderson J was whether the mother had instituted vexatious proceedings frequently, as contemplated by the Act. This required the court to assess the nature and purpose of the proceedings commenced by the mother after the final orders were made.

Henderson J found that the mother's subsequent proceedings were indeed vexatious, constituting an attempt to re-litigate matters that had already been finally determined. Consequently, the court made orders prohibiting the mother from instituting any further proceedings under the Act against or in relation to the father or the child, B, without first obtaining leave of the Court pursuant to section 102QD. This prohibition did not extend to applications for costs arising from these orders, appeals from these orders, applications for transcripts, or the filing of responses or affidavits in reply.

Orders

Orders of the court

The mother is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“ the Act”) against or in relation to the father Mr Meadows or the child B without first having been granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QD of the Act.

This vexatious proceeding order does not apply to:

(a) Any cost application of the mother arising from these Orders and filed within the time prescribed under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Family Law Rules 2004;

(b) Any appeal from these Orders provided such appeal is filed within the time prescribed under the Family Law Rules 2004 or such other time as is permitted by order of the Full Court;

(c) An application made by the mother to the Family Court to provide the mother with a copy of the transcript of proceedings heard before Justice Henderson; and

(d) The filing of a response or affidavit in reply by the mother.

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.