Warner and Houseman

In the matter of *Warner and Houseman*, heard before Mushin J, the father, Mr Warner, sought final orders in proceedings filed on 27 October 2008. The mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer were also parties to the proceedings. The specific nature of the dispute concerning the children is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates a significant level of ongoing litigation initiated by the father.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's applications for final orders and, more broadly, to address the pattern of litigation initiated by the father. This included considering the imposition of restrictions on the father's ability to commence further proceedings under the *Family Law Act 1975* and the allocation of costs associated with the applications.

Mushin J dismissed the father's applications, finding it necessary to impose a restriction under s.118 of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This provision allows the court to prevent a party from instituting proceedings without leave, a measure typically employed to curb vexatious or repetitive litigation. The court reasoned that such an order was warranted in this instance, likely due to the father's persistent applications. Consequently, the father was ordered to pay the costs of both the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer, with a stay of execution on these costs for six months. All other applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the court's list.