With the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on the rise it is imperative that if is used in proceedings it is so used with great caution. Although the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 relates to the use of AI by a self-represented party, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale.
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.
When entering into Consent Orders it is important to consider those Orders very carefully, especially any flow on effects. In Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166, a decision of His Honour, Austin J, considered an appeal filed by the father in respect of Consent Orders made by a Division 2 Judge, on 20 August 2025.
Padgett [2025] FedCFamC1A 140 involved proceedings in both the Magistrates Court of Western Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia where a ‘Harmful Proceedings’ Order had been made against the Applicant, Ms Padgett. Prior to May 2024 this was quite commonly referred to as the litigant having been declared a vexatious litigant and was generally the result of a litigant having filed multiple proceedings which were, quite often, doomed from the outset.
With the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on the rise it is imperative that if is used in proceedings it is so used with great caution. Although the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 relates to the use of AI by a self-represented party, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale.
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.
When entering into Consent Orders it is important to consider those Orders very carefully, especially any flow on effects. In Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166, a decision of His Honour, Austin J, considered an appeal filed by the father in respect of Consent Orders made by a Division 2 Judge, on 20 August 2025.
Padgett [2025] FedCFamC1A 140 involved proceedings in both the Magistrates Court of Western Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia where a ‘Harmful Proceedings’ Order had been made against the Applicant, Ms Padgett. Prior to May 2024 this was quite commonly referred to as the litigant having been declared a vexatious litigant and was generally the result of a litigant having filed multiple proceedings which were, quite often, doomed from the outset.
