FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Monfort & Bade [2024] FedCFamC1F 16
File number(s): BRC 4638 of 2014 Judgment of: HOWARD J Date of judgment: 25 January 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where final property Orders were made in 2017 – Where the wife pursued an unsuccessful Appeal against those Orders – Where the parties consented in February 2019 to the appointment of a new Trustee for Sale in respect of two properties in Queensland – Where the wife obstructed the sale of the second property – Where the wife pursued delaying tactics – Where the wife is found to be a vexatious litigant – Where the Final Orders remain capable of being carried into effect – Where the wife’s complaints about the conduct of the Trustee for Sale are without merit – Costs Orders made. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 79A, 80, 102Q, 102QB, 102QE, 117
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 10.02 and r 10.14
Succession Act 1981 (Qld)
Cases cited: Gambetto & Farrelli [2023] FedCFamC1F 465
McDonald & McDonald (1976) FLC 90-047
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan(No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Pencious & Searle (2017) FLC 93-805; [2017] FamCAFC 210
Pera & Pera (2008) FLC 93-372; [2008] FamCAFC 87
Potier v Attorney-General (2015) 89 NSWLR 284
Ravasini & Ravasini (1983) FLC 91-312
Slapp & Slapp (1989) FLC 92-022; [1982] FamCA 9
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 178 Date of hearing: 23 November 2022, 17 January 2023, 18 January 2023, 23 January 2023 31 January 2023, 1 February 2023 and 13 March 2023 Date of last submission: 8 May 2023 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Litigant in person Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Chinyelu Counsel for the Second Respondent: S F Downes Solicitor for the Second Respondent: W Lawyers
Table of Corrections 1 March 2024 The name of the matter was amended to delete the designation “Bade & Monfort” and change it to “Monfort & Bade”. 1 March 2024 Footnote 1 was amended to delete the reference to “The husband was the applicant in the original proceedings – hence the designation “Bade & Monfort”.”. 1 March 2024 In paragraph 82, “affect” was changed to “effect”. ORDERS
BRC 4638 of 2014 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS MONFORT
Applicant
AND: MR BADE
First Respondent
MR FLANNAN
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JANUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:
1.The wife’s Amended Application in a Case filed 27 September 2021 is dismissed.
2.Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) all extant applications instituted by the wife (Ms Monfort) against the husband (Mr Bade) or his legal advisors both past and present in any court having jurisdiction under the Act be dismissed.
3.Pursuant to…
Continue reading Monfort & Bade
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Monfort & Bade [2024] FedCFamC1F 16
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1F 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the wife's complaints about the conduct of the trustee were without merit. It was evident that she had employed delaying tactics and obstructed the sale of one of the properties. The wife's persistent and repetitive litigation against the husband, the trustee, and their legal representatives led the court to declare her a vexatious litigant under section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Given that the final property orders remained capable of being carried into effect, the court dismissed the wife's amended application and imposed costs.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made several orders to address the wife's vexatious conduct. Firstly, the wife's amended application was dismissed. Secondly, all extant applications she had instituted against the husband, the trustee, and their legal representatives were dismissed. Thirdly, the wife was prohibited from instituting further proceedings against the husband or the trustee without first obtaining leave to do so. Additionally, the court granted the trustee the liberty to apply for further directions if necessary. The court also mandated that the trustee submit draft orders to the court and the parties within fourteen days of the judgment, with the parties having seven days to comment on the draft orders. The court will issue the final orders once the comment period has elapsed, irrespective of whether the wife or the husband respond.
This decision underscores the court's commitment to preventing vexatious litigation and ensuring that final property orders are enforced effectively. The court's orders aim to protect the husband, the trustee, and their legal representatives from the wife's continued legal challenges.
Orders
Orders of the court
BRC 4638 of 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS MONFORT
Applicant
AND:
MR BADE
First Respondent
MR FLANNAN
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JANUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:
1. The wife’s Amended Application in a Case filed 27 September 2021 is dismissed.
2. Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) all extant applications instituted by the wife (Ms Monfort) against the husband (Mr Bade) or his legal advisors both past and present in any court having jurisdiction under the Act be dismissed.
3. Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(a) of the Act, all extant applications instituted by the wife (Ms Monfort) against the trustee (Mr Flannan) or his employees or agents (both past and present) or his legal advisors (both past and present) in any court having jurisdiction under the Act be dismissed.
4. Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Act the wife (Ms Monfort) be prohibited from instituting proceedings involving the husband (Mr Bade) or his legal advisors both past and present in any court having jurisdiction under the Act without first having been granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QE of the Act.
5. Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Act the wife (Ms Monfort) be prohibited from instituting proceedings against the trustee (Mr Flannan) or his employees or agents (both past and present) or his legal advisors (both past and present) in any court having jurisdiction under the Act without first having been granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QE of the Act.
6. The Trustee has liberty to apply.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:
7. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order the Trustee shall forward to the Court and to the wife and the husband draft orders/directions as outlined in these Reasons for Judgment.
8. From the date that the Trustee forwards to the Court and to the wife and to the husband the draft orders/directions (per Order 7) the wife and the husband shall have seven (7) days to forward to the Court and to the Trustee and to the other party any comments or suggested variations to the Trustee’s draft orders/directions.
9. Once the time limits stipulated in Orders 7 and 8 have elapsed the Court will proceed to issue the balance of the final orders whether or not the wife or the husband have taken the opportunity to respond to the wording of the Trustee’s draft orders/directions.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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.