MILFORD & DOUMAS

In the matter of *Milford & Doumas*, Thornton J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the respondent husband to amend his Response to an Application in a Case. The applicant wife sought to have paragraph 7 of the husband's Response dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether paragraph 7 of the husband's Response, which sought to rely on certain alleged contraventions of court orders, was sufficiently particularised to comply with the requirements of the *Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021* (Cth) and the Family Law Rules 1984 (Cth) (as they were at the time of filing). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the allegations within paragraph 7 were pleaded with the necessary clarity and detail to allow the wife to understand and respond to them.

Thornton J reasoned that the allegations in paragraph 7 lacked the requisite specificity. The Court applied the principles of pleading, which require that material facts be pleaded with sufficient particularity to inform the opposing party of the case they have to meet. The judge found that the broad and general nature of the allegations in paragraph 7 did not meet this standard, making it impossible for the wife to adequately prepare her defence. Consequently, the Court determined that paragraph 7 was an abuse of process due to its lack of particularity.

The Court ordered that paragraph 7 of the applicant husband’s Response to an Application in a Case filed 2 March 2017 be dismissed.