Vaughan (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 159

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159   

Appeal from: Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531
Appeal number: NAA 389 of 2025
File number: ADC 5154 of 2022
Judgment of: SCHONELL J
Date of judgment: 5 September 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CROSS-APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Leave to appeal – Harmful proceedings – Where the primary judge made interlocutory injunctive orders that were not directed towards the applicant – Where the primary judge had previously restrained the applicant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave – Where the applicant sought a grant of leave to cross-appeal from the orders of the primary judge – Where all grounds of appeal are bereft of merit – Where the applicant has not established the proposed appeal is not vexatious – Application dismissed   
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102Q, 102QAG
Cases cited:

Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191

Candle v Falkner [2021] FedCFamC1A 102

Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Development Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55

Darley (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1A 158

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

Finch & Finch (2020) FLC 93-949; [2020] FamCAFC 60

Fowles & Fowles (No 2) (2024) FLC 94-198; [2024] FedCFamC1A 115

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48

Perdicari & Perdicari (2019) FLC 93-914; [2019] FamCAFC 147

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 279 CLR 148; [2023] HCA 15

Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2016] 332 ALR 128; [2016] NSWCA 88

Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141; [1986] HCA 54

Vaughan [2025] FedCFamC1A 155

Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Number of paragraphs: 28
Date of hearing: 3 September 2025
Place: Determined in chambers
The Applicant: No appearance required

ORDERS

NAA 389 of 2025
ADC 5154 of 2022

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

MR VAUGHAN

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in an Appeal filed 28 August 2025 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…

Continue reading Vaughan (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1A 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Vaughan applied for leave to cross-appeal against the orders of the primary judge in family law proceedings. The primary judge had issued interlocutory injunctive orders that did not address the applicant's concerns. The applicant had previously been restrained from instituting further proceedings without leave. The court had to decide whether to grant leave to appeal given the applicant's history of filing unmeritorious and potentially vexatious proceedings.

The court considered the merits of the grounds of appeal and found them to be without merit. The applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed appeal was not vexatious. The court also noted the applicant's history of filing numerous appeals and cross-appeals, which were largely unsuccessful. The court was concerned that allowing the appeal could lead to harmful and repetitive litigation.

In light of the lack of merit in the grounds of appeal and the applicant's history of vexatious litigation, the court dismissed the application for leave to cross-appeal. The court found that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice and would only perpetuate unnecessary litigation. The court emphasised the importance of avoiding harmful and repetitive proceedings in family law matters.

The court's order was that the application for leave to cross-appeal was dismissed. This decision underscores the court's commitment to preventing vexatious litigation and ensuring that family law proceedings are conducted efficiently and in the best interests of the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 389 of 2025

ADC 5154 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR VAUGHAN

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed 28 August 2025 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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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.