Petridis & Petridis (No. 2)

The parties to this proceeding were the wife, seeking property settlement orders, and the husband, who was bankrupt. The dispute before McClelland DCJ in the Family Court of Australia concerned the husband's oral application for leave to make submissions regarding the property settlement pursuant to section 79(12) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The central legal issue was whether the bankrupt husband should be granted leave to intervene and make submissions in the property settlement proceedings, notwithstanding his previous misuse of such leave.

McClelland DCJ dismissed the husband's application. His Honour reasoned that the husband had previously been granted leave to intervene with the consent of the parties, but had then abused that leave by making inappropriate submissions. Given this history of misuse, and the potential for further disruption, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to grant further leave for the husband to make submissions. The court applied the principle that leave to intervene, particularly for a party who has previously abused such a privilege, should not be granted lightly and requires a demonstration that the intervention will be proper and not disruptive.