VERBOOM & VERBOOM

In the matter of *Verboom & Verboom*, Harman J considered applications by Mr Verboom to terminate proceedings entirely, determine and dismiss them on their merits, and for summary dismissal. The proceedings had an extensive history, including a substantial history of family violence. Ms Verboom was represented by Legal Aid ACT.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings should be terminated or summarily dismissed, and whether the "rule" in *Rice & Asplund* applied, preventing a reopening of the proceedings due to a lack of change in circumstances. The court also considered an application for costs on an indemnity basis, given that the applicant in the substantive proceedings had been wholly unsuccessful and their application was described as poorly framed and ill-conceived.

Harman J dismissed Mr Verboom's applications, finding that there was no change in circumstances that would warrant a reopening of the proceedings. The court assessed the level of risk that a further reopening of litigation would represent and concluded that the application did not raise any fresh judiciable controversy. Furthermore, the orders sought by Mr Verboom were inconsistent with an existing family violence order, and the evidence suggested to support reopening the proceedings was scant and unsatisfactory.

Consequently, Harman J ordered the dismissal of all outstanding applications and responses. Mr Verboom was ordered to pay $2,681.20 towards Ms Verboom's costs, with provision for interest and enforcement proceedings in the event of non-payment.