Wood and Muller

Case [2020] FamCA 162

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WOOD & MULLER [2020] FamCA 162
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – where the husband initiated proceedings seeking final property orders – where final property orders were made by the court between the husband and the wife in 2005 – where the husband did not engage in those proceedings – where the wife seeks a summary dismissal and that the husband be declared a vexatious litigant – where the court has no power to make orders as sought by the husband – where the husband’s application had no reasonable prospect of success – order that the proceedings be summarily dismissed pursuant to section 45A.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 45A, 102Q, 102QB
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 10.12, 10.14
Arthurman & Arthurman (2019) FLC 93-926
Brogden v Attorney-General [2001] NZCA 2008
Lindon v Commonwealth (No. 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Pedrana & Roberts (No 2) [2015] FamCA 231
Pelerman & Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Pencious & Searle (2017) FLC 93-805
Potier v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 89 NSWLR 284
Siteberg Pty Ltd v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Stenhouse Ltd (1997) AustTorts Reports 81-423
APPLICANT: Mr Wood
RESPONDENT: Ms Muller
FILE NUMBER: MLC 10449 of 2019
DATE DELIVERED: 19 March 2020
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Johns J
HEARING DATE: 10 March 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Hams, Southern Family Law

Orders

  1. That the applicant husband’s amended Initiating Application filed 23 January 2020 be dismissed.

  2. That save as to the issue of costs, the respondent wife’s Response to Initiating Application filed 28 November 2019 and Application in a Case filed 5 December 2019 be otherwise dismissed.

  3. That by 4.00 p.m. on 3 April 2020 the respondent wife file and serve any written submission relied upon in support of her application for costs arising out of or incidental to her Response to Initiating Application and Application in a Case.

  4. That by 4.00 p.m. on 17 April 2020 the applicant husband file and serve any written submission in response to the submissions filed by the applicant wife in relation to her application for costs.

  5. That any submissions as to costs be limited to 10 pages.

  6. That any application for costs be reserved for determination in chambers.

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 Wood & Muller 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

Continue reading Wood and Muller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wood and Muller [2020] FamCA 162
Case
[2020] FamCA 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Wood and Muller*, Johns J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband and a response and application in a case by the wife. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed, but the proceedings concerned applications made by both the husband and the wife.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the husband's amended Initiating Application should be dismissed, and to what extent the wife's Response to Initiating Application and Application in a Case should be dismissed. The court was also required to determine the question of costs arising from these applications.

Johns J dismissed the husband's amended Initiating Application in its entirety. The wife's Response to Initiating Application and Application in a Case were also dismissed, save for the issue of costs. The court then made directions for the filing and service of written submissions by both parties concerning the wife's application for costs, limiting these submissions to 10 pages each, with the final determination of costs to be reserved for chambers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the applicant husband’s amended Initiating Application filed 23 January 2020 be dismissed.

2.

That save as to the issue of costs, the respondent wife’s Response to Initiating Application filed 28 November 2019 and Application in a Case filed 5 December 2019 be otherwise dismissed.

3.

That by 4.00 p.m. on 3 April 2020 the respondent wife file and serve any written submission relied upon in support of her application for costs arising out of or incidental to her Response to Initiating Application and Application in a Case.

4.

That by 4.00 p.m. on 17 April 2020 the applicant husband file and serve any written submission in response to the submissions filed by the applicant wife in relation to her application for costs.

5.

That any submissions as to costs be limited to 10 pages.

6.

That any application for costs be reserved for determination in chambers.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.