No 60i Certificate, No Case: Court Confirms FDR Prerequisite Can’t Be Skipped Even When the Other Party Refuses

In Mayfield & Mayfield [2025] FedCFamC2F 1227, Judge Turnbull of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2, Hobart) reaffirmed the strict operation of section 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — the rule that parties must first attempt Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) or obtain an appropriate section 60I certificate before filing parenting proceedings. The applicant mother argued her case should proceed because the father’s refusal to attend mediation made FDR impossible. However, the Court held that even in such situations, the proper process is to obtain a practitioner’s certificate reflecting that refusal — not to bypass the system entirely. The decision reinforces that procedural compliance under section 60I is a jurisdictional gatekeeper to filing parenting applications.

📜 Facts and Issues

Facts

• Ms Mayfield sought to file an Initiating Application for parenting orders.
• The Deputy Registrar rejected her application because she did not file a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) certificate under section 60I(7) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• Ms Mayfield argued an exemption applied under s 60I(9)(e) (“unable to participate effectively”), because the father had refused to attend FDR.
• Her solicitor’s affidavit showed repeated written invitations (16 January and 5 February 2025) to participate in mediation, both declined by the father’s solicitor.
• The Deputy Registrar found no valid exemption applied and refused filing; Ms Mayfield applied to review that decision under rule 14.05 of the FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021.

Issues

1. Was the Deputy Registrar correct to reject the application for lack of a section 60I certificate?
2. Did the applicant qualify for an exemption under section 60I(9)(e) — “unable to participate effectively”?
3. Was the father’s refusal to attend FDR enough to bypass the certification requirement?

⚖️ Law

Key legislative provisions:

• s 60I(7) – The court must not accept an application for a Part VII parenting order unless a valid certificate accompanies it or an exemption applies.
• s 60I(8) – Sets out the types of certificates an FDR practitioner may issue, including where the other party refused or failed to attend.
• s 60I(9) – Lists limited exemptions (consent orders, abuse, family violence, urgency, inability to participate, etc.).
• Rules 14.05–14.07 – Allow review of a Registrar’s exercise of power, but such reviews are “original hearings” that reconsider the matter afresh.

Relevant precedents:

• Tomaras & Tomaras [2018] FamCA 446 – Reaffirmed the mandatory nature of FDR prior to filing parenting applications.
• Brett & Brett [2021] FedCFamC1F 87 – Clarified that refusal by one party requires certification by a practitioner, not self-assessment.
• Amos & Amos [2023] FedCFamC2F 217 – Held that misusing the “inability to participate” exemption undermines the legislative intent of encouraging mediation.

🔍 Application

1️⃣ Requirement to File a Certificate

The Court confirmed that under s 60I(7), no parenting application can be filed without a certificate or exemption. Judge Turnbull emphasised that the Registrar was bound by statute to reject the filing when no certificate was provided.

2️⃣ Exemption Under s 60I(9)(e)

Ms Mayfield relied on the “unable to participate effectively” exemption. The Court found her reliance misplaced: there was no evidence of incapacity, remoteness, or other reason preventing participation — the father’s mere refusal was not the same as inability.

3️⃣ Appropriate Process

Judge Turnbull held that Ms Mayfield should have booked an FDR appointment with a registered practitioner and, upon the father’s refusal, obtained a certificate under s 60I(8)(a), (aa) or (c). This would have demonstrated compliance with the Act and allowed her application to be filed.

4️⃣ Decision

Since none of the s 60I(9) exemptions applied, the Deputy Registrar was correct to reject the application. The Court therefore dismissed the review application.

💬 Analysis of the Judgment

Judge Turnbull’s reasoning illustrates the strict jurisdictional role of section 60I. The Court cannot waive or overlook the certificate requirement — even when the non-filing party has acted unreasonably. The judgment reinforces that:

• The FDR system is designed to promote early resolution and filter disputes before litigation.
• Only recognised FDR practitioners can certify a refusal, ensuring an objective verification of non-attendance.
• Courts cannot accept a “DIY” affidavit in place of a formal certificate.
• Turnbull J noted that had the applicant followed the proper step of arranging FDR, she would likely have received a certificate confirming the respondent’s refusal, satisfying the Act’s pre-condition for filing.

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

“A refusal to mediate is not an excuse to skip the process — it’s a reason to get the certificate.”

The Mayfield decision serves as a cautionary reminder:

• Section 60I certificates are gatekeeping documents — the Court lacks jurisdiction without one.
• Practitioners must advise clients to book FDR formally, document refusals, and secure a certificate of refusal.
• Self-declared exemptions should be avoided unless clear evidence fits the narrow statutory categories under s 60I(9).