Australia, July 9 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement:

1 HIS HONOUR: Many families function and live out their lives delighting and disappointing each other without resort to legal processes. Sometimes legal processes may be necessary to determine disputed relational matters and property entitlements within families.

2. Not all such litigation is unwelcome or vexed. Uncontested adoption applications are a quintessential example of a legal proceeding which in many respects gladdens hearts and generally enriches the adoptive family. However, many family grievances or disputes worked out in the context of litigation have the opposite tendency, especially where conducted by a family member by means of unrestrained disparaging correspondence and materials of no probative value for any legitimate forensic purpose.

3. Such family litigation will often be particularly challenging where questions arise regarding the capacity or motives of one or more of the family members.

4. On 8 May 2025, I dismissed with costs an application of the first defendant (John) [1] for a financial management order in respect of the third defendant, his mother (Olivia) (application). These reasons for judgment set out the basis for my dismissal of the application.

5. The history to the dismissal is important and I will recite salient parts of it below. It brings to an end a long-standing attempt (approximately 2.7 years) by John to achieve through the application certain disclosed financial objectives which were very remote from the proper purpose of a financial management order and far from evident as being for the welfare of his mother. John was initially legally represented but since early September 2024 has been self-represented.

6. Evidence at a prior hearing before me revealed that over 25 years ago, certain medical professionals ventured an opinion that John had what was then described as "Asperger's syndrome". [2] Without opining on that, certainly on one view, John exhibits sufficient functioning qualities to conduct litigation. However, the tragic irony in this matter is that John's conduct of the application raised more questions regarding his own sagacity, than that of his mother to conduct her affairs.

7. To give context to the dismissal of the proceedings, it will be necessary to outline certain of John's conduct of the application. Even so, it is not appropriate nor the purpose of this judgment to venture into any examination of John's capacity nor the reasons for his conduct. No application was made by any party challenging John's capacity to conduct litigation. Expressly, I do not proceed on the basis that John has been diagnosed with or has any form of autism spectrum disorder or other condition that may impact upon his capacity or conduct.

8. The reasons make reference to reasons for judgment delivered by me on 9 August 2024, Julie (a pseudonym) v John (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 964 (principal judgment or PJ) and will adopt its nomenclature and abbreviations.

9. Up to the time of the principal judgment, John was represented by solicitors and counsel. Thereafter, as will be detailed below, he was relevantly self-represented.

10. Between the time of the principal judgment, on which occasion I made orders (see below), up to (but not including) the hearing on 8 May 2025, there were 5 listings before me of the matter, on 4 September 2024, 15 October 2024, 10 December 2024, 20 February 2025 and 5 March 2025. In addition, I made listing and other orders in Chambers on 4 separate occasions. [3]

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197490afe2320a1fd9dde08b)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.