FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 206
File number: WOC 772 of 2011 Judgment of: JUDGE LIOUMIS Date of judgment: 21 February 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious Proceedings Order – Where the Applicant sought an order pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prohibiting the Respondent from instituting further proceedings without leave – Where the proceedings have a long history – Application granted Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIB, ss 4, 69ZK, 102NA, 102Q, 102QB, 102QE
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 5.15
Cases cited: Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Pencious & Searle [2017] FamCAFC 210
Pitman & Hynes [2021] FamCA 300
Pitman & Hynes [2024] FedCFamC2F 22
Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2018] FamCA 1015
Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 373
Potier v Attorney-General (2015) 89 NSWLR 284
Rilak & Tsocas [2020] FamCA 49
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 66 Date of last submission: 19 February 2024 Date of hearing: On the papers Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hill of Counsel Solicitor for the Applicant: Fletch Law For the Respondent: The Respondent represented herself ORDERS
WOC 772 of 2011 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR HYNES
Applicant
AND: MS PITMAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LIOUMIS
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), the Respondent MS PITMAN is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Act against or in relation to the Applicant MR HYNES without first being granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QE of the Act.
2.All outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.
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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
On 19 January 2024, I delivered judgment in this matter dismissing the Application – Contempt filed by the mother on 29 April 2022.[1] As part of the Orders made on this date, the parties were required to…
Continue reading Pitman & Hynes (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pitman & Hynes (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 206
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 206
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the court was whether the criteria set out in section 102QB(2)(b) of the Act were met, which requires the court to consider whether there were previous proceedings between the parties, whether those proceedings were vexatious, and whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances to make the order sought. The court also needed to consider the balance of convenience and the likely impact of the order on both parties. The court examined the history of the proceedings, the nature of the applications made, and the conduct of both parties during the litigation.
In rendering its decision, the court found that the criteria for making the Vexatious Proceedings Order were satisfied. The court identified a pattern of behaviour by Ms Pitman that included making repeated, often frivolous, applications that did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court concluded that Ms Pitman's conduct was vexatious and that making the order sought was appropriate in the circumstances. The court further determined that the balance of convenience favoured Mr Hynes, as the order would prevent further unnecessary litigation and protect him from further harassing applications. Accordingly, the court made the order sought by Mr Hynes, prohibiting Ms Pitman from instituting further proceedings without leave.
The final orders of the court were that Ms Pitman was prohibited from initiating proceedings under the Family Law Act against or in relation to Mr Hynes without first obtaining leave of the court, and that all outstanding applications were dismissed with the proceedings removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.
Orders
Orders of the court
WOC 772 of 2011
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR HYNES
Applicant
AND:
MS PITMAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LIOUMIS
DATE OF ORDER:
21 FEBRUARY 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to section 102QB(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), the Respondent MS PITMAN is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Act against or in relation to the Applicant MR HYNES without first being granted leave to commence that proceeding pursuant to section 102QE of the Act.
2. All outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.
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.