• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

On 23 January 2024, Judge Bender made orders at a compliance and readiness hearing. They included adjourning the family law proceeding to a final hearing listed for 13 May 2024, requiring affidavits by 28 March 2024, limiting reliance on late trial affidavits without leave, requiring documents for trial by 6 May 2024, and requiring the plaintiff to provide any current family violence order between the parties by that date ([9]). The plaintiff sought to challenge some of those orders by a proposed Notice of Appeal. An Appellate Judicial Registrar did not accept that notice for filing, reasoning that the challenged orders were not a “judgment”. The plaintiff then sought review of that decision before Austin J ([7]).

On 10 May 2024, the plaintiff filed an application in the High Court seeking several forms of relief. These included prohibition to prevent the family law proceeding from going to final hearing, mandamus requiring the proceeding to be determined according to law, and certiorari to quash Judge Bender’s orders, the refusal to accept the proposed Notice of Appeal, and Austin J’s orders ([2]). It appeared that the final hearing did not take place on its scheduled date. After the High Court sought further information, the plaintiff filed an affidavit and an interlocutory application on 24 July 2024 seeking further directions, including relisting, a trial management hearing, and a different judge for future hearings ([4]).

Edelman J dismissed both applications without a hearing. The central conclusion was that the principal application was “manifestly hopeless and an abuse of process” ([12]). The additional relief fell with the principal application ([12]).

Why the court decided this way

The judgment began with the screening rule in r 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). That rule allows an application for a constitutional or other writ to be dismissed without being listed for a hearing if it does not disclose an arguable basis for relief or is an abuse of process ([3]). Edelman J explained that abuse of process includes an attempt to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction on a basis that is “confused or manifestly untenable”, describing such an application as “manifestly hopeless” ([3]).

A central concern was the route chosen to challenge the family law court’s interlocutory decisions. Edelman J observed that, in the usual course, a party aggrieved by an interlocutory decision may be able to raise error in an appeal from final orders affected by it. The judgment also noted that an appeal to the High Court from a final judgment may be available following special leave ([5]). It then stated that an attempt to circumvent the established appeal process by applying in the High Court’s original jurisdiction will usually be an abuse of process ([5]). The judgment did not say that every original-jurisdiction application concerning an interlocutory decision is abusive. Its wording was qualified: such an attempt “will usually” be an abuse.

The Court also assessed whether the plaintiff’s complaints identified jurisdictional error capable of supporting the writ relief. Edelman J considered the material difficult to follow, even allowing for the plaintiff’s status as an unrepresented litigant ([6]). Much of the affidavit material alleged wrongdoing by the mother, including an allegation that an earlier family law judgment had been obtained by fraud or perjury. The judgment found it unclear how that allegation, even if established, would show jurisdictional error in the current proceeding ([6]). This is a distinction in the reasoning: serious allegations about a party to the underlying dispute did not, without a demonstrated connection to jurisdictional error by the court, establish a basis for the High Court relief sought.

The Court separately considered the proposed appeal and Austin J’s review decision. Austin J had reasoned that Judge Bender’s orders were not a “judgment” because they did not determine a legal right of the plaintiff ([8]). Edelman J did not decide whether that reasoning correctly applied the statutory definition of “judgment” in s 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). Instead, the Court proceeded on the assumption most favourable to the plaintiff: even if the orders could be a “judgment” within s 7, the submissions did not establish that the asserted legal error was material and therefore jurisdictional ([8]). The judgment also stated that any jurisdictional error by Austin J would not, in any event, be enough to support the relief sought in the principal application ([8]).

The complaints about Judge Bender’s case-management orders also failed to provide an arguable basis for jurisdictional error. They concerned discretionary pre-trial orders and matters of court practice and procedure ([9]–[10]). The plaintiff relied in part on amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that he said came into effect on 6 May 2024, and on comments by Judge Bender that he said had dismissed relevant historical issues. Edelman J found that the comments were not capable of establishing apprehended bias and that the discernible complaints concerned matters before trial and court procedure. They did not provide an arguable basis for jurisdictional error ([10]).

Finally, the plaintiff alleged that written submissions had been disregarded and that historical facts would be disregarded at the final hearing. The Court found that none of the facts identified in the affidavit material was capable of establishing a procedural fairness breach amounting to jurisdictional error that could support the relief sought ([11]).

Before and after state of the law

This judgment did not purport to change the law. It applied the screening power in r 25.09.1 and the abuse-of-process principles cited from Re Young and Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn ([3]). It also relied on Dimitrov v Supreme Court of Victoria and KDSP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs for the proposition that using an original-jurisdiction application to circumvent the established appeal process will usually amount to an abuse ([5]).

The judgment’s description of the ordinary route for interlocutory challenges is important but carefully framed. It says that a party may, in the usual course, challenge an interlocutory decision on an appeal from final orders if those orders are affected by error. It also notes the possible High Court appeal route following special leave under s 55(4)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ([5]). The judgment refers to s 26 of that Act in connection with an appeal from interlocutory decisions ([5]). It does not set out the detailed operation of those provisions, nor determine what appeal routes would have applied to each order in this particular proceeding.

The decision also leaves unresolved the meaning of “judgment” in s 7 of the Act as applied to Judge Bender’s orders. Edelman J noted the possible distinction between the common law meaning and the statutory definition, but expressly found it unnecessary to decide the point ([8]). The decision therefore should not be read as establishing whether the specific case-management orders were or were not a “judgment” for the statutory appeal process.

On the facts before the Court, the practical effect was that these particular complaints could not support the original-jurisdiction relief sought. The decision does not state a general rule that case-management decisions can never involve jurisdictional error, or that procedural fairness complaints can never support writ relief. Its conclusion was tied to the complaints and supporting facts presented in the applications ([10]–[12]).

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [3], Edelman J stated that abuse of process “encompasses an attempt to invoke the original or appellate jurisdiction of the High Court on a basis that is confused or manifestly untenable”. In plain English, the High Court may screen out an application that does not present a coherent and legally arguable basis for its intervention. The paragraph links that principle to the power under r 25.09.1 to dismiss without a hearing.

At [5], the judgment states: “An attempt to circumvent the established appeal process by an application in the original jurisdiction of this Court will usually be an abuse of process.” The practical point is that the High Court’s original jurisdiction is not ordinarily a substitute for the appeal process. The word “usually” matters: the judgment describes a general approach, not an exceptionless rule.

At [8], Edelman J said it was unnecessary to decide whether Judge Bender’s orders amounted to a “judgment” under s 7 of the Act. Even assuming they did, the plaintiff had not shown that the asserted error was material and therefore jurisdictional. In plain English, resolving the classification question would not have changed the result because a further element needed for the writ claim was not established on the submissions.

At [10], the Court concluded that the discernible complaints about case management and procedure did not provide “even an arguable basis for a jurisdictional error”. This reflects the distinction between disagreement with procedural decisions and a legally arguable claim that the court exceeded its jurisdiction. The judgment did not decide the merits of the underlying parenting dispute.

At [11], the Court considered the procedural fairness allegations and found that the facts identified were not capable of establishing a jurisdictional error through breach of procedural fairness. The finding concerned the material put forward in these applications, not every possible allegation of unfairness in family law proceedings.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The judgment is most directly relevant where a litigant seeks constitutional or other writs in the High Court to challenge interlocutory decisions made in another court, particularly where an established appeal pathway may be available. It indicates that the High Court may examine whether the application is an attempt to bypass that pathway and whether the alleged errors are capable of amounting to jurisdictional error ([5]).

It is also relevant where the application combines complaints about case management, allegations against another party, and claims of procedural unfairness, but does not clearly explain how those matters show jurisdictional error by the decision-maker. In this case, the allegations about the mother did not explain how jurisdictional error arose in the current family law proceeding ([6]). The case-management complaints related to pre-trial directions and practice and procedure, and were not found to establish an arguable jurisdictional error ([9]–[10]).

The precedent is not a determination that all interlocutory decisions are unreviewable, that every procedural complaint is insufficient, or that a writ application can never be appropriate. The judgment’s focus was on whether this application, on its stated grounds and supporting material, disclosed an arguable basis or constituted an abuse of process. It also does not decide the statutory meaning of “judgment” in s 7 for the relevant orders ([8]).

How later courts have treated it

The judgment provided here contains no discussion of later decisions treating Beckford as precedent. It is dated 29 July 2024, and the text does not identify any subsequent judicial consideration. On the supplied source alone, it is not possible to state whether later courts have applied, distinguished, followed, or criticised it.

The sources the judgment itself cites show the authorities it relied on, rather than how later courts treated Beckford. In particular, Re Young and Citta Hobart are cited for the abuse-of-process standard ([3]), while Dimitrov and KDSP are cited for the proposition about attempts to circumvent established appeal processes ([5]). The judgment also refers to a Federal Circuit and Family Court appellate decision, Beckford & Beckford [2024] FedCFamC1A 57, concerning the proposed Notice of Appeal and the meaning of “judgment” ([7]–[8]). No wider subsequent treatment can be inferred from the text provided.

Still-open questions

Several matters were expressly left undecided. First, the Court did not determine whether Judge Bender’s orders affected legal rights or qualified as a “judgment” under s 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). It assumed that they might do so and found that the plaintiff still had not shown material, jurisdictional error ([8]).

Second, the judgment did not determine the merits of the allegations made about the mother, including the allegation of fraud or perjury in an earlier proceeding. It found that the plaintiff had not explained how those allegations, even if established, demonstrated jurisdictional error in MLC 2438/2023 ([6]).

Third, the judgment did not make findings about the merits of the parenting dispute or the eventual conduct and outcome of the family law proceeding. It noted that the final hearing had apparently not occurred on 13 May 2024 and refused the later request for relisting and other case-management orders because the principal application had been dismissed as an abuse of process ([4], [12]).

Finally, the decision did not elaborate on the precise circumstances in which a writ application concerning an interlocutory decision might be appropriate despite the ordinary appeal process. Its statement was that attempts to circumvent that process will “usually” be an abuse ([5]). The limits of that qualification are not resolved in the judgment.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.