Pencious and Searle

[2017] FamCA 1004

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENCIOUS & SEARLE [2017] FamCA 1004

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where applicant subject to s 102QB vexatious proceedings order – where application is made for leave to file an Application in a Case for Review of decision of a Registrar – application for leave dismissed.

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

APPLICANT: Mr Pencious

RESPONDENT: Ms Searle

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11069 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 1 December 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Thornton J

HEARING DATE: 8 November 2017

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Tasiopoulos Lambros and Co

Orders

1. The applicant’s Application in a Case filed 19 September 2017 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pencious & Searle has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 11069 of 2008

Mr Pencious

Applicant

And

Ms Searle

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant husband brings an application in the Judicial Duty List seeking leave to file an Application in a Case and three supporting affidavits pursuant to s 102QE of the Family Law Act (Cth) (“the Act”). Under s 102QE(4) of the Act the other party is not required to be notified and was not in attendance.

2. The application was made before the delivery of judgment by the Full Court in Pencious & Searle [2017] FamCAFC 210 (“Pencious & Searle”) on 11 October 2017.  The husband was the appellant in that appeal.

3. In Pencious & Searle the Full Court varied orders made on 7 March 2016 by Macmillan J in the following terms:

   Pursuant to s 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the husband, Mr Pencious, be prohibited from instituting proceedings involving the wife, Ms Searle, her immediate family or her 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 s102QE of the Act.

4. The Reasons for Judgment of the Full Court outline the background to those proceedings which need not be repeated.

The Application

1. In his Application in a Case filed 19 September 2017, the applicant husband at Part 7 seeks a review of the decision of a Registrar. The applicant husband seeks the following orders:

   1.That this Honourable Court grant leave to make this application and affidavit in support lodged for filing contemporaneously herein.

   2.That Registrar Riddiford be disqualified from…