Foredoomed to Fail”: Court Shuts Down Vexatious Application in Vaughan (No 4)

Introduction

In Vaughan (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 480, Justice Kari of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) refused Mr Vaughan’s application for leave to commence further proceedings against his former partner. The decision is a sharp reminder of the operation of harmful proceedings orders introduced under the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), designed to prevent repeated, meritless applications that amount to systems abuse and family violence. The Court concluded that the father’s proposed application was vexatious, abusive of process, and “foredoomed to fail,” thus dismissing it under ss 102QAE–102QAF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Facts

• Mr Vaughan (self-represented) and Ms Vaughan are parties to ongoing property and parenting proceedings concerning their five children.
• On 10 July 2025, the Court:
• Made parenting orders for supervised time only, rejecting the father’s repeated bids for unsupervised time.
• Ordered the sale of family assets, following the father’s continued non-compliance with financial disclosure and settlement obligations.
• Imposed a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC, prohibiting him from initiating further proceedings without leave.
• Despite this, on 18 July 2025, Mr Vaughan lodged an application seeking (among other things):
• A stay of recent property and procedural orders pending appeal.
• Compelled responses from the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), Court Child Expert, and mother’s solicitor.
• Permission to instruct his own child expert to interview the children.
• Access to audio recordings of hearings.
• Disqualification of the mother’s solicitor.

Issues

1. Whether Mr Vaughan’s affidavit complied with the procedural requirements of s 102QAE(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Whether his proposed application had reasonable prospects of success or was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under ss 102QAF–102QAG.

Law

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part XIB:
• s 102QAC: empowers courts to make harmful proceedings orders to prevent frequent, unnecessary applications constituting systems abuse.
• s 102QAE: sets requirements for leave applications, including full disclosure in supporting affidavits.
• s 102QAF(2): mandates dismissal if proposed proceedings are vexatious.
• s 102QAG: permits leave only if proceedings are not frivolous or abusive and have reasonable prospects of success.
• Key precedents cited:
• Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 – abuse of process exists where proceedings are “foredoomed” to fail.
• Darley (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1A 158 – burden rests on applicant to prove proceedings are not frivolous/vexatious.
• Porter v Dyer (2022) 402 ALR 659; Charisteas & Charisteas (2022) FLC 94-109 – restraint of solicitors requires exceptional grounds.
• Sampson & Hartnett (2013) FLC 93-542 – free transcripts are only provided in exceptional circumstances.

Application of Law to Facts

• Compliance with s 102QAE(3):
• The Court accepted the affidavit technically complied (father disclosed facts and leave history).
• Abuse of process / vexatious claims:
• Compelling responses (ICL, expert, solicitor): Impossible in law; foredoomed to fail; thus vexatious.
• Disqualifying solicitor: No credible legal basis; likely brought to harass or delay.
• Own expert report: Attempt to subvert earlier binding orders and failed appeal; abusive.
• Audio recordings: Requests were wide, unfocused, and raised concerns of public disclosure contrary to Part XIVB of the Act; no exceptional basis as required by Sampson & Hartnett.
• Stay pending appeal: No draft grounds of appeal, so Court could not assess merit; therefore abusive.

Thus, every order sought was vexatious or without merit.

Judgment & Reasoning

• Justice Kari held that all proposed orders were an abuse of process, foredoomed to fail, and possibly brought for collateral purposes.
• Since s 102QAF(2) requires dismissal of vexatious proceedings, the Court refused leave and dismissed the application.
• No costs were awarded against the father because the mother was not notified of the application, consistent with earlier orders.

Take-Home Lesson

This case demonstrates that harmful proceedings orders under the Family Law Act are powerful tools against systems abuse. Once such an order is in place, any further application must show genuine merit and reasonable prospects of success. Applications designed to relitigate old issues, harass the other party, or misuse court resources will be dismissed as vexatious. Self-represented litigants, in particular, must carefully comply not only with procedural rules but also with substantive legal standards—failure to do so risks permanent restrictions on access to the court process.