Harmful Proceedings Orders are being made more often it would seem and also in property proceedings, as opposed to parenting matters.  In the case of Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159 His Honour, Schonell J, determined an attempt by the applicant to cross-appeal from a decision in Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531.  In those long running proceedings, a harmful proceedings Order had been made against the applicant, Mr Vaughan, on 10 July 2025 and he therefore needed leave to file any further applications.  The Application in an Appeal sought leave to cross appeal against Orders made on 6 August 2025 by the same Division 1 Judge.

On 28 August 2025 His Honour, Schonell J, determined and dismissed an Application in an Appeal by the husband seeking leave to appeal some of the Interlocutory Orders made by a Division 1 Judge on 10 July 2025.  Whilst the husband raised a number of grounds of appeal it was in respect of an Order ordering the sale of property to satisfy financial Orders previously made against him and with which not only had he not complied but he had taken a number of steps seeking to frustrate those earlier Orders, that the subsequent attempt at cross appeal relates.  In concluding that matter His Honour opined, at paragraph 55:

As the grounds set out in the Draft Notice of Appeal have no reasonable prospects of success, they are liable to be dismissed as vexatious and accordingly the Application in an Appeal filed 8 August 2025 will be dismissed.

Following the 10 July 2025 Orders, and prior to determination of his attempt to appeal those Orders, an associate of the husband filed caveats against the property that was to be sold, a further attempt at frustrating the Interlocutory Orders.  The Orders of 6 August 2025 required the third party to both withdraw the caveat and restrained her from filing any further caveats.  The husband takes issue with those Orders.  In respect of those Orders His Honour opined, at paragraph 7:

It is immediately apparent that Orders 1 and 2 do not in any way bind nor are they directed to the applicant. Order 3 is not an order amenable to appeal while Order 4 is a necessary consequence of the making of Orders 1 and 2. Consequently, absent the applicant establishing reasonable prospects of success on appeal in relation to Orders 1 and 2, the application would be vexatious and liable to be dismissed.

His Honour ultimately determined that the proposed Notice of Cross-Appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, were therefore vexatious, and the application was dismissed.