SCVG (No 2)

[2020] FamCA 276

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCVG (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 276

FAMILY LAW – vexatious litigant order – application for leave to institute proceedings – application made in the shadow of a recent refusal of leave in similar circumstances – dismissal of application without oral hearing

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

APPLICANT: Mr SCVG

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4380 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 22 April 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-represented

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed 14 April 2020 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 SCVG 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4380  of 2008

Mr SCVG

Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter involves an application filed 14 April 2020 for leave to commence proceedings in relation to C by the Father, who is the subject of a vexatious litigant order.

2. The general circumstances of the application are set out in SCVG delivered on 3 March 2020 where the Applicant was refused leave in relation to a similar application involving both C and her older sister, B.

3. The question arises as to whether this application should be dismissed in accordance with the powers contained at s 102QF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), without further hearing and without directing service of the putative Respondents.

4. It may be observed that the affidavit filed in support of the application, in large part, covers subject matter raised by the Applicant on the previous unsuccessful application for leave.  Much of the affidavit is in the form of argument as to why leave ought to be given without the identification of further factual matters.  I am unable to identify any significant further factual matter contained in the material as compared to what was before the Court on the last application.

5. On the last occasion leave was refused on the basis that I was not satisfied that the application was not vexatious, the burden resting on the Applicant.  The repetition of the application (although this time restricted to C) based substantially if not wholly on the same factual substratum as the last occasion, means that the proceedings are, in the terms of s 102Q of the Act, an abuse of the Court, or proceedings instituted without reasonable ground, being proceedings that meet the description of “vexatious proceedings.”

6. Section 102QF mandates the dismissal of an application where the Court concludes it is vexatious. It permits this to occur without oral hearing, with or without the consent of the Applicant. Having had the benefit of the Applicant’s affidavit, and having had regard to the arguments raised therein, and noting the circumstances of the previous dismissal, it is appropriate to dismiss this matter without further hearing.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 24 April 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  24 April 2020