Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 455

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455

File number(s): ADC 5154 of 2022

Judgment of: KARI J

Date of judgment: 10 July 2025

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Child related proceedings – Where interlocutory parenting orders were made 28 February 2025 for the father to spend supervised time with four children in an “on-site unsupervised” program at a children’s contact service – Where the father has since filed four separate interlocutory parenting applications – Where the service can no longer facilitate time – Where the risk factors previously identified have not been ameliorated – Where the Court is not bound by the proposals of the parties nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Supervised time to remain – Minor variation to previous order

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the father served the Independent Children's Lawyer (“ICL”) with a Notice to Admit – Where the ICL seeks dismissal of the Notice to Admit – Where the father asks the Court to discharge the ICL – Where the ICL has discharged their obligations pursuant to s 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Notice to Admit uplifted and father’s application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the father is in default of orders made in March 2024 to pay to the mother the sum of $50,000 – Where the orders provided for the sale of the former matrimonial home in default of payment – Where the father has frustrated the default provisions of the orders – Where the mother seeks orders for the sale of alternate property – Orders made for alternate property to be sold and the mother to be paid the partial property settlement from the proceeds of sale

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Default – Where the father has failed to comply with orders – Where the mother seeks an order pursuant to r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Order made prohibiting the father from taking any further step in the financial proceedings until the sale of the former matrimonial home

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harmful proceedings – Where the Court apprehends the litigation is being unnecessarily delayed by the continual filing of applications and documents by the father – Where much of the father’s communications with the mother’s solicitors and ICL are derogatory, inflammatory, offensive and contain threats – Where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the mother and/or children would suffer harm if the father instituted further proceedings – Order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prohibiting the father from instituting proceedings under the Act

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIB, ss 68LA, 71B, 79, 80, 102QAC

Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth)

Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 455
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vaughan & Vaughan, the court addressed multiple issues concerning parenting, financial matters, and procedural aspects of the case. The primary concern was the supervision of the father's time with the children, the handling of an Independent Children's Lawyer's ("ICL") Notice to Admit, financial compliance, and procedural restrictions. The father had previously been ordered to spend supervised time with the children at a contact service. However, the contact service could no longer facilitate unsupervised time, and the risk factors previously identified had not been resolved. The court decided that supervised time should remain in place with minor variations to the previous order. The court also dealt with the father's application to discharge the ICL, which was dismissed, and his Notice to Admit, which was uplifted from the court file.

Regarding financial matters, the court addressed the father's default on a payment order, directing the sale of alternative property to satisfy the outstanding amount. The court also prohibited the father from taking any further steps in the financial proceedings until specific conditions were met. Additionally, the court issued an order under section 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to prevent the father from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court due to the harmful nature of the litigation. This was deemed necessary as the father's actions were seen as unnecessarily delaying the proceedings and potentially harmful to the mother and children. The court further prohibited the mother from being notified if the father sought leave to institute proceedings. Finally, the court ordered a case management mention following the publication of a Family Report.

Orders

Orders of the court

ADC 5154 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS VAUGHAN

Applicant

AND:

MR VAUGHAN

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

KARI J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

PARENTING

1. Order 1 made 28 February 2025 be varied to provide:

(a) The father shall spend supervised time with the children W born 2008, X born 2010, Z born 2012 and Y born 2012 (“collectively referred to as “the children”) at a contact service nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) on the following basis:

(i) Time spending shall take place at dates and times as can be accommodated by the service, provided however that such time occur each alternate weekend and that it not exceed a period of two hours on each occasion;

(ii) The parties shall both comply with the prescribed terms of the service;

(iii) The children are not to leave the premises of the service; and

(iv) The father is restrained by injunction from discussing these proceedings, or any issue arising in the proceedings with the children at any such time spending.

2. All interlocutory parenting applications filed by the parents be dismissed, save and except as to costs.

THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

3. The Notice to Admit filed by the father on 1 April 2025 directed to the ICL be uplifted from the court file.

4. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the ICL on 9 April 2025 otherwise be dismissed, save and except as to costs.

5. The Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed by the father on 5 May 2025, directed to the ICL, be dismissed.

FINANCIAL

6. Order 5(c) made 27 March 2024 be discharged.

7. The mother shall forthwith do all things to place the property situate at Lots 1 and 2 D Street, Town E in the State of South Australia (the “Town E property”) on the market for sale, with the mother to be the sole trustee for sale and authorised by these orders to sign all documents on behalf of the parties to effect such sale, with a copy of these orders evidencing such entitlement on the part of the mother.

8. The mother shall provide to the selling agent and conveyancer instructed by her in relation to the sale of the Town E property a copy of these orders.

9. The mother shall follow all reasonable advice provided by the selling agent engaged by her in respect to the sale of the Town E property including but not limited to the presentation of the property for sale, the mode of sale and the reserve price (if any).

10. The father shall, insofar as is necessary, execute all documents necessary to facilitate the sale of the Town E property.

11. The father is restrained by injunction from:

(a) Physically attending upon the Town E property;

(b) Contacting the selling agent engaged by the mother for the purposes of the sale of the Town E property;

(c) Contacting any person (other than a member of the father’s family) who has expressed any interest in the purchase of the Town E property; and

(d) Taking any action to attempt to delay or frustrate the sale of the Town E property.

12. Upon the sale of the Town E property, the proceeds of sale shall be disbursed as follows:

(a) Payment of all sales costs and commissions;

(b) To discharge any mortgage or any other charges secured or registered over the Town E property;

(c) Payment to the mother in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) by way of partial property settlement in accordance with Order 2 made 27 March 2024;

(d) The balance to be held in the Trust Account of Camatta Lempens for and on behalf of the parties pending further order of the Court or agreement between the parties in writing.

13. Forthwith after the sale of the Town E property, the mother shall engage such accountant necessary to:

(a) Cause such accounts, taxation returns, ASIC documentation and the like to be prepared in order for the Vaughan Superannuation Fund (the "SMSF") to be brought into compliance with all requirements of the Australian Taxation Office and ASIC, as applicable;

(b) Cause to be provided to the mother and the father a copy of all such accounts of the SMSF, including, but not limited to, financial statements for the years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024;

(c) Advise the mother and the father in writing upon the amount of net proceeds of sale of the Town E property required to be deposited into the bank account of the SMSF; and

(d) Advise in writing the mother and the father the quantum of any Capital Gains Tax liability accruing to each of them and to the SMSF as a result of the sale of the Town E property.

14. The father shall provide such documents to the accountants engaged by the mother pursuant to Order 13 as requested by them within fourteen (14) days of any such request made to the father in writing, and shall execute all documents required of him by such accountants in respect to the matters specified in Order 13(a).

15. Notwithstanding Order 12(d), the mother is authorised to pay from the funds held in the trust account of Camatta Lempens:

(a) The amount as advised by the accountants pursuant to Order 13(c), into the bank account of the SMSF; and

(b) All accounts for fees rendered by the accountants engaged by her pursuant to Order 13.

16. In the event that the father fails or neglects to sign any document or do anything necessary to give effect to the terms of these Orders the pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is hereby empowered to sign such document or do such thing in the name of the Respondent as may be necessary to give effect to this Order.

17. Pursuant to r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the father is prohibited from taking any further step in the financial proceedings until the occurrence of the following events:

(a) The sale of the property at B Street, Suburb C in the State of South Australia (“the Suburb C property”);

(b) The disclosure by the father to the solicitors for the mother, Camatta Lempens, of a copy of the Settlement Statement in respect to the sale of the Suburb C property; and

(c) The deposit by the father of all the proceeds of the sale of the Suburb C property into the Trust Account of Camatta Lempens, solicitors for the mother.

HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS

18. Pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) the father is prohibited, without leave of the Court, from instituting proceedings under the Act in any court having jurisdiction under the Act, against or in relation to the mother.

19. Should the father seek leave to institute proceedings pursuant to s 102QAE of the Act, the mother is NOT to be notified:

(a) That an application has been made; and/or

(b) Dismissed by this Honourable Court.

PROCEDURAL

20. The proceedings be listed for mention and case management on a date to be fixed following the publication of the Family Report ordered on 28 February 2025.

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

As a result, it does not appear that any parenting orders are necessary to regulate this issue.Conclusion For all of the reasons discussed, the only parenting orders that shall be made are those amendments to Order 1 made 28 February 2025.. Orders shall otherwise be made dismissing all extant applications for parenting orders.APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE ICL I have already discussed the applications of each the ICL and the father stemming from the Notice to Admit filed by the father and directed to the ICL. In determining this topic, the Court has had regard to all of those documents referred to earlier in these reasons regarding the applications for parenting orders.The application of the ICL to deal with the Notice to Admit filed by the father It is the position of the ICL that because the ICL is not a party to the proceedings, the ICL cannot be served with a Notice to Admit. These submissions are accepted for the following reasons. Firstly, Part 8.1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) sets out the procedure for Admissions. Relevantly, r 8.01 sets out that a Notice to Admit can be served on a “party” to proceedings. Secondly, the Court has long held that an ICL is not a party to parenting proceedings (Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184 at 207 and 225–226). In all of these circumstances I am satisfied that there is no basis for a Notice to Admit directed to the ICL to be served and/or filed. Moreover, I consider that doing so is an abuse of process, as is using the ICL’s refusal to respond as a basis for filing an application to have the ICL discharged. Leaving aside the fundamental flaws already identified with the substance of the Notice to Admit which would have properly grounded orders uplifting the same from the court file, an order shall be made uplifting the Notice to Admit filed by the father and directed to the ICL.The father’s application to have the ICL “removed” & associated orders The basis of the father’s application to have the ICL “removed” is unclear. At best the Court understands that the father considers that the ICL is in some way biased against him, and/or has not executed the role of ICL diligently. Giving the best possible gloss to the Notice to Admit filed by the father on 1 April 2025 directed to the ICL, the Court shall, for the purposes of these reasons, treat this document as the father’s submissions in support of his application to have the ICL removed. The Court certainly has the power to discharge the appointment of an ICL (Lim & Zong (2021) FLC 94-048 at [17] (“Lim & Zong”). In Holinski & Holinski [2025] FedCFamC1F 143 (at [13]) Riethmuller J identified:In Lloyd & Lloyd and Child Representative (2000) FLC 93-045, Holden CJ listed circumstances likely to form a basis for discharging an ICL, saying (at [11]):(i)if there is evidence that the separate representative had, in any way, acted contrary to the children's interests;(ii)if there is evidence before the Court that the separate representative had acted incompetently in a professional sense;(iii) if it is apparent that the separate representative has demonstrated a lack of professional objectivity; or(iv) if to continue to act would involve a breach of a fiduciary duty or a conflict of interest.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	ADC 5154 of 2022
Judgment of:	KARI J
Date of judgment:	10 July 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Child related proceedings – Where interlocutory parenting orders were made 28 February 2025 for the father to spend supervised time with four children in an “on-site unsupervised” program at a children’s contact service – Where the father has since filed four separate interlocutory parenting applications – Where the service can no longer facilitate time – Where the risk factors previously identified have not been ameliorated – Where the Court is not bound by the proposals of the parties nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Supervised time to remain – Minor variation to previous order FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the father served the Independent Children's Lawyer (“ICL”) with a Notice to Admit – Where the ICL seeks dismissal of the Notice to Admit – Where the father asks the Court to discharge the ICL – Where the ICL has discharged their obligations pursuant to s 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Notice to Admit uplifted and father’s application dismissed FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the father is in default of orders made in March 2024 to pay to the mother the sum of $50,000 – Where the orders provided for the sale of the former matrimonial home in default of payment – Where the father has frustrated the default provisions of the orders – Where the mother seeks orders for the sale of alternate property – Orders made for alternate property to be sold and the mother to be paid the partial property settlement from the proceeds of sale FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Default – Where the father has failed to comply with orders – Where the mother seeks an order pursuant to r 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Order made prohibiting the father from taking any further step in the financial proceedings until the sale of the former matrimonial home FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harmful proceedings – Where the Court apprehends the litigation is being unnecessarily delayed by the continual filing of applications and documents by the father – Where much of the father’s communications with the mother’s solicitors and ICL are derogatory, inflammatory, offensive and contain threats – Where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the mother and/or children would suffer harm if the father instituted further proceedings – Order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) prohibiting the father from instituting proceedings under the Act
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIB, ss 68LA, 71B, 79, 80, 102QAC Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules…