FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  822 posts
  •  ·  4828 friends

Court Calls Time on Litigation Chaos: Harmful Proceedings Order

In Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 455, Justice Kari of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a comprehensive ruling addressing a father’s barrage of interlocutory applications across parenting, property, and procedural issues. Despite repeated warnings, the father’s conduct — marked by abusive communications, baseless filings, and disregard for orders — culminated in the Court issuing a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), prohibiting him from instituting further proceedings without leave. The decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against litigation misuse and its priority to protect parties and children from ongoing harm.

Facts and Issues

  • The parents, Ms Vaughan and Mr Vaughan, were engaged in longstanding family law proceedings concerning property division and parenting of their five children.
  • Previous orders (Feb 2025) required the father’s time with the children to be supervised at a contact centre due to identified risks.
  • After those orders, the father filed four more interlocutory parenting applications, repeatedly seeking unsupervised time.
  • The father also issued Notices to Admit against both the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), the latter of which the ICL sought to have dismissed.
  • Concurrently, the father breached financial orders requiring him to pay the mother $50,000 and obstructed the sale of property intended to satisfy that obligation.
  • The mother sought enforcement of financial orders, while the ICL requested dismissal of the father’s improper notices.
  • The Court also had to determine whether the father’s ongoing conduct constituted “harmful proceedings” under Part XIB of the Family Law Act.

Key Issues:

  1. Whether supervised parenting time should continue.
  2. Whether the father’s Notice to Admit against the ICL was valid.
  3. Whether the father’s noncompliance with financial orders warranted further injunctions.
  4. Whether the father’s conduct justified a harmful proceedings order under s 102QAC.

Law

The Court applied:

  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
  • s 65DAA – Best interests and protection of children.
  • s 68L and s 68LA – Obligations of Independent Children’s Lawyers.
  • s 79 – Property settlement powers.
  • s 102QAC – Harmful proceedings order;
  • s 102QAE – Leave requirement to commence further proceedings.
  • s 106A – Power of Registrar to sign documents in default.
  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021: rr 10.26–10.27 (default and procedural compliance).
  • Precedents Cited:
  • U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238 – Court not bound by parties’ proposals.
  • Oberlin & Infeld (2021) FLC 94-017 – Judicial discretion in child safety orders.
  • Re JJT; Ex parte Victoria Legal Aid (1998) 195 CLR 184 – Protective jurisdiction.
  • Lamport & Garside [2024] FedCFamC2F 1007 – Harmful proceedings test.
  • Holinski & Holinski [2025] FedCFamC1F 143 – Use of s 102QAC to prevent further harm.

Application of Law to Facts

1. Parenting Orders and Risk Assessment

Justice Kari reaffirmed the earlier supervised-time orders.

  • The father’s behaviour had deteriorated since February 2025: he refused judicial engagement, sent abusive communications to the ICL and mother’s solicitors, and used children as conduits for hostility ([87]–[90]).
  • The judge found no “amelioration” of risk; rather, the risk had increased, particularly given the father’s inability to shield the children from adult conflict.
  • Consequently, supervised time was maintained, with the ICL directed to locate a new contact service ([91]–[99]).

2. ICL Notice to Admit

The father’s Notice to Admit to the ICL was “wholly misconceived” — it contained arguments and accusations, not admissible facts ([80]–[83]).

  • The Court uplifted the notice and dismissed the father’s application to remove the ICL, finding the ICL had discharged all obligations under s 68L.

3. Financial Orders and Non-Compliance

The father had failed to pay the $50,000 property settlement and frustrated the sale of the matrimonial home ([5], [12]).

  • Pursuant to r 10.27, he was barred from taking any further step in financial proceedings until sale compliance was achieved.
  • Orders authorised the mother to sell an alternate property (Town E property) and receive her entitlement from the proceeds.

4. Harmful Proceedings Order (s 102QAC)

The judge concluded that the father’s litigation conduct met the statutory test for harmful proceedings.

  • His actions caused delay, intimidation, and harm to the mother and children, including threats to professionals and excessive filings (225 documents total).
  • The Court cited Holinski & Holinski [2025] and Lamport & Garside [2024] in confirming that the threshold for s 102QAC is satisfied when there are reasonable grounds to believe further proceedings would inflict harm ([6]–[8], [85]).
  • Accordingly, the father was prohibited from instituting any further proceedings under the Act without leave, and if leave is sought, the mother is not to be notified until after judicial review ([Order 19]).

Judgment and Reasoning

Justice Kari’s reasoning centred on protection, finality, and proportionality:

  • The father’s repetitive, aggressive filings and communications showed an entrenched inability to act in the children’s interests.
  • The Court’s duty under Pt VII and Pt XIB required it to intervene to shield the family and the legal system from harm.
  • Given the father’s ongoing defaults and intimidation of professionals, no lesser remedy (such as costs orders) would suffice.
  • Accordingly, supervised time continued, the ICL remained, property compliance was enforced, and the harmful proceedings order was made to restore control of the process.

Cited Paragraphs and Authorities

  • Parenting risk assessment: [87]–[90].
  • Judicial independence in parenting determinations: citing U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238 at [284]–[285].
  • ICL obligations: [52]–[54]; s 68LA(6).
  • Financial enforcement: [5], [12], Orders 5–13.
  • Harmful proceedings findings: [6]–[8], [85], Orders 18–19.
  • Case references: Lamport & Garside [2024]; Holinski & Holinski [2025].

Take-Home Lesson

“Persistence becomes persecution when litigation turns harmful.”

Vaughan & Vaughan (No 3) highlights that the Family Court’s protective powers extend beyond parenting orders.

Repeated, unfounded filings and hostile communications can justify a harmful proceedings order, effectively cutting off a litigant’s access until leave is granted.

The Court will prioritise the safety and stability of children and the integrity of its processes over an individual’s desire to relitigate grievances.

FLAST

Close