Monfort (No 3)

Case [2024] FedCFamC1A 63

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Monfort (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 63

Appeal from:

Monfort & Bade [2024] FedCFamC1F 16

Monfort & Bade (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 109
Appeal numbers: NAA 34 of 2024
NAA 52 of 2024
File number: BRC 4638 of 2014
Judgment of: AUSTIN J
Date of judgment: 18 April 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL –Where the applicant previously filed two applications seeking the grant of leave to appeal – Where those applications were dismissed by the Full Court respectively on 8 March 2024 and 22 March 2024 (the “dismissal orders”) – Where the applicant filed an application for special leave to appeal in the High Court of Australia (“the High Court”) only in respect of the orders made on 8 March 2024 – Where the applicant seeks a stay of both dismissal orders pending the High Court’s determination of her special leave application in respect of only the first orders – Where, on the day before these applications were filed, the High Court dismissed the applicant’s stay application – Where it is an abuse of process for the applicant to maintain identical stay applications before an inferior appellate court – Applications dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIB, ss 102QB, 102QE, 102QF

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 32 and s 46

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 Pt 5.3, r 13.38
Cases cited:

Monfort (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 27

Monfort [2024] FedCFamC1A 23

Monfort [2024] HCASJ 15
Number of paragraphs: 21
Date of hearing: Determined in chambers on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: Litigant in person
Table of Corrections
19 April 2024 In paragraph 7, delete the sentence “Although the applicant may want her applications determined in open court, irrespective of her desire, the application for leave to appeal under Pt XIB of the Act is instead determined on the papers in chambers as the Act permits (s 102QF(3) and s 102QF(4))” and replace with, “Although the applicant may want her applications determined in open court, irrespective of her desire, the applications for the grant of leave under Pt XIB of the Act to bring the stay applications are instead determined on the papers in chambers as the Act permits (s 102QF(3) and s 102QF(4)).”

ORDERS

NAA 34 of 2024
NAA 52 of 2024
BRC 4638 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MS MONFORT

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 APRIL 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in an Appeal filed on 17 April 2024 in Appeal NAA 34/2024 is dismissed.

2.The Application in an Appeal filed on 17 April 2024 in Appeal NAA 52/2024 is 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…

Continue reading Monfort (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Monfort (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 63
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1A 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Monfort to stay orders made by the Court on 8 March 2024 and 22 March 2024. These orders pertained to a long-running property settlement dispute between Ms Monfort and her former spouse. The Full Court had previously dismissed Ms Monfort's applications for leave to appeal these orders. Ms Monfort subsequently filed an application for special leave to appeal in the High Court regarding the 8 March 2024 orders. She also sought to stay both sets of dismissal orders pending the High Court's decision on her special leave application. The High Court dismissed Ms Monfort's stay application the day before the present application was filed.

The legal issues before the Full Court involved whether Ms Monfort's applications to stay the orders were an abuse of process given the High Court's recent dismissal of her stay application and the fact that she sought to stay both dismissal orders. The court also had to consider whether Ms Monfort's desire for her applications to be heard in open court, as indicated in the applications, should prevail over the statutory requirement that such applications be heard in chambers.

The Full Court found that it was an abuse of process for Ms Monfort to maintain identical stay applications before the Court when the High Court had already dismissed her stay application. The Court noted that Ms Monfort had already had multiple opportunities to appeal the orders in question and that her continued attempts to stay the orders demonstrated a pattern of vexatious behaviour. The Court also held that the statutory requirement for such applications to be heard in chambers must be followed, regardless of Ms Monfort's stated preference.

The Full Court dismissed Ms Monfort's applications to stay the orders made on 8 March 2024 and 22 March 2024. The Full Court held that to allow the applications would amount to an abuse of process given the recent dismissal of Ms Monfort's stay application in the High Court and her continued attempts to stay the orders despite multiple opportunities to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 34 of 2024

NAA 52 of 2024

BRC 4638 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS MONFORT

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 APRIL 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 17 April 2024 in Appeal NAA 34/2024 is dismissed.

2. The Application in an Appeal filed on 17 April 2024 in Appeal NAA 52/2024 is 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).

Background

Background to the litigation

Within Pt C of the two applications, the applicant ticked the box indicating her wish for the applications not to be dealt with in her absence in accordance with r 13.38 and Pt 5.3 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. Although the applicant may want her applications determined in open court, irrespective of her desire, the applications for the grant of leave under Pt XIB of the Act to bring the stay applications are instead determined on the papers in chambers as the Act permits (s 102QF(3) and s 102QF(4)). As required (s 102QE(4)), the applications are determined without being served upon the other parties to the underlying proceedings, who have the benefit of the vexatious litigant injunctions.Background The following history is extracted from Monfort (No 2):3.Property settlement proceedings between the applicant and her former spouse (“the husband”) were concluded by orders made under Pt VIII of the Act on 13 October 2017.4.The applicant’s appeal from those orders was dismissed on 24 August 2018 (Monfort & Bade [2018] FamCAFC 163).5.Despite the finalisation of the financial cause between the parties, more litigation ensued due to their dispute over the implementation of the property settlement orders. Applications for consequential orders and contempt proceedings followed.6.The 2017 orders were consensually varied on 1 February 2019 but, notwithstanding the agreed variation, the substantive property settlement orders have still not been fully implemented.7.Between November 2022 and March 2023, over seven days, the primary judge heard numerous applications agitated between the applicant, the husband, and the trustee appointed to sell some of the spouses’ property (“the trustee”). Judgment was reserved.8.On 25 January 2024, the primary judge dismissed one application brought by the applicant (Order 1) and made vexatious litigant injunctions against her (Orders 2–5), as were sought by the husband and the trustee. Reasons were published by the primary judge for those orders, but it was expressly noted further orders would be made once the trustee has filed an updated minute of proposed orders, upon which the applicant and the husband could both comment (at [178]; Orders 7–9).…10.On 1 March 2024, the primary judge made a further series of orders, including: a declaration the applicant was in default of the property settlement orders (Order 1); costs orders against the applicant (Orders 2 and 3); orders for the payment of the trustee’s expenses (Order 5); the discharge of a stay order (Order 6); and numerous consequential and enforcement orders between the applicant, the husband, and the trustee to facilitate the implementation of the property settlement orders (Orders 4 and 7–19). The orders were later amended under the slip rule on 20 March 2024, but the amendments make no difference for present purposes. The applicant’s two former applications to the Full Court seeking the grant of leave under s 102QE(2) of the Act to appeal from the first-instance orders made on 25 January 2024 and 1 March 2024 were both dismissed.

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.