Agli & Segura

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 133

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Agli & Segura [2025] FedCFamC1A 133

Appeal from: Orders of 24 March 2025
Appeal number: NAA 162 of 2025
File number: PAC 5209 of 2023
Judgment of: AUSTIN J
Date of judgment: 25 July 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – Where the applicant wife requires leave to appeal from orders appointing a solicitor as her litigation guardian – Where the grounds of appeal do not competently allege any recognisable appealable error of law, fact or discretion – Where the litigation guardian applied to be joined as a party to the appeal – Where the proposed appeal lacks merit and does not need rebuttal by the litigation guardian – Application and Response thereto dismissed – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII, s 48

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited: Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692; [2016] FamCAFC 34
Number of paragraphs: 33
Date of hearing: 25 July 2025
Place: Newcastle (via Microsoft Teams)  
The Applicant: Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Wallace
Solicitor for the Respondent: Parks Family Law
Solicitor Advocate for the Litigation Guardian: Mr Beckman
Solicitor for the Litigation Guardian: VRT Lawyers

ORDERS

NAA 162 of 2025
PAC 5209 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MS AGLI

Applicant
AND:

MR SEGURA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in an Appeal filed by the applicant’s litigation guardian on 16 June 2025 is dismissed.

2.The Response to an Application in an Appeal filed by the applicant on 9 July 2025 is dismissed.

3.Leave to appeal is refused and the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 27 June 2025 is dismissed.

4.The applicant wife shall pay the respondent husband’s party/party costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal fixed in the sum of $7,500 pursuant to r 12.17(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), payment of which shall not fall due until finalisation of the financial cause between the parties.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this…

Continue reading Agli & Segura

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Agli & Segura [2025] FedCFamC1A 133
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1A 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The wife, Ms Agli, sought leave to appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 24 March 2025, appointing a solicitor as her litigation guardian. The wife’s application for leave to appeal was opposed by the husband, Mr Segura, and the litigation guardian. The litigation guardian applied to be joined as a party to the appeal. The primary judge dismissed the wife's application for leave to appeal, the litigation guardian's application to be joined as a party to the appeal, and the litigation guardian's application in an appeal. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal in a fixed sum.

The court was required to determine whether the wife had grounds for leave to appeal from the orders appointing the litigation guardian. The court had to consider whether the wife had competently alleged any appealable error of law, fact or discretion in her grounds of appeal. The court also needed to decide whether the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not need rebuttal by the litigation guardian.

The court found that the wife’s grounds of appeal did not competently allege any recognisable appealable error of law, fact or discretion. The court found the proposed appeal to lack merit and did not need rebuttal by the litigation guardian. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal was not meritorious and dismissed it. The litigation guardian's application to be joined as a party to the appeal and its application in an appeal were also dismissed. The court ordered the wife to pay the husband's costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal in a fixed sum.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant’s litigation guardian on 16 June 2025 is dismissed. The court further ordered that the response to an application in an appeal filed by the applicant on 9 July 2025 is dismissed. The court also ordered that leave to appeal is refused and the amended notice of appeal filed on 27 June 2025 is dismissed. Finally, the court ordered the applicant wife to pay the respondent husband’s party/party costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal fixed in the sum of $7,500 pursuant to r 12.17(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 162 of 2025

PAC 5209 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS AGLI

Applicant

AND:

MR SEGURA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed by the applicant’s litigation guardian on 16 June 2025 is dismissed.

2. The Response to an Application in an Appeal filed by the applicant on 9 July 2025 is dismissed.

3. Leave to appeal is refused and the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 27 June 2025 is dismissed.

4. The applicant wife shall pay the respondent husband’s party/party costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal fixed in the sum of $7,500 pursuant to r 12.17(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), payment of which shall not fall due until finalisation of the financial cause between the parties.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

These reasons explain the dismissal of an application for leave to appeal, brought by the wife from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 24 March 2025, appointing a solicitor as her litigation guardian.Background In October 2023, the husband filed a divorce application, alleging the parties separated in February 2022. The wife filed a Response, alleging they did not separate until July 2023, thereby putting in factual dispute the duration of their separation. The divorce application was only competent if the parties had been separated for 12 months (s 48(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). To avoid the factual dispute, the husband was granted leave to discontinue his divorce application and bring a fresh application after 12 months had elapsed from the later date of separation alleged by the wife. In July 2024, the husband filed his second divorce application, though he again alleged the parties separated in February 2022. The wife again filed a Response, but this time she alleged the parties did not separate until March 2024. Again, the husband declined to prosecute the divorce application to avoid dispute. In November 2024, the husband filed his third divorce application, the timing of which was calculated to be more than 12 months after the wife was served with the first divorce application in October 2023, but he still alleged the parties separated in February 2022. The third divorce application was listed before a judge on 4 November 2024. Evidently concerned by the wife’s abnormal behaviour in Court on that occasion, the judge ordered the registrar to correspond with the Attorney-General to appoint a manager of the wife’s affairs, whom it was expected would then also fulfil the function of the wife’s litigation guardian. The registrar corresponded with the Attorney-General but, for reasons which remain unknown, no person was appointed by the Attorney-General. The following notation was made by a senior judicial registrar to some procedural orders made on 21 January 2025:F.An Order was made for the appointment of a Litigation Guardian on 4 November 2024 and the Australian Attorney General’s Department has since not been able to source a Litigation Guardian. Given the inaction, on 30 January 2025, the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking the appointment of an independent solicitor as the wife’s litigation guardian, which application was listed for hearing before the primary judge on 24 March 2025. The wife filed a Response on 13 February 2025, objecting to the two solicitors alternatively proposed by the husband for appointment as her litigation guardian. The husband then filed an Initiating Application on 14 February 2025, seeking financial relief under the Act. A flurry of litigious activity then ensued. In the few weeks before the hearing of the defended interlocutory application about the appointment of a litigation guardian for the wife, she filed two Amended Responses and no less than 11 affidavits. By the time of the appointed hearing, aside from objecting to the two solicitors proposed by the husband as litigation guardians, the wife wanted various other forms of interlocutory relief, including: an order referring the husband’s solicitor and the two solicitors proposed as litigation guardians to authorities to be prosecuted for perjury; the dismissal of the husband’s pending divorce application; and the permanent stay of the financial proceedings.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.