Bele & Vaughan (No.2)

[2012] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BELE & VAUGHAN (NO. 2) [2012] FamCAFC 125

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION – where the Regional Appeal Registrar refused to accept for filing the Notice of Appeal dated 4 May 2012 against orders made on 9 June 2011 and 13 December 2011 – where the applicant relies on r 24.10(3) of Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – where the process and principles are the same regardless of the Rule utilised – where the orders are “affected orders” under the Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Orders and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) – where the applicant says that the time to file a Notice of Appeal commences to run from the time of commencement of that Act – where these arguments are flawed – where to pursue an appeal against the orders of 9 June and 13 December 2011 still requires either reinstatement of the abandoned appeal and/or an extension of time to appeal – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REINSTATEMENT – where in the alternative the applicant seeks to reinstate the appeal previously filed against orders made by Cronin J on 9 June 2011 – where that appeal was deemed abandoned pursuant to r 22.21 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – where the fundamental issue is whether reinstatement of the appeal is necessary to enable the court to do justice between the parties – where the applicant provides no adequate explanation of the failure to comply with the order for the filing of the appeal books or the delay in filing an application until 13 June 2012 – where there is no merit in the grounds of appeal set out in the abandoned Notice of Appeal – where there is no actual error by either trial judge raised in the Notice of Appeal dated 4 May 2012 and no grounds of appeal as such are set out – where in any event there is doubtful merit in the challenges set out in that Notice of Appeal – where the appropriateness of seeking to pursue the constitutional arguments raised by the applicant by using the appeal process itself is called into question – where it is found that the approach adopted by the applicant is part of a concerted effort to prevent the sale of the property being completed pursuant to the orders of Le Poer Trench J of 13 December 2011 – where there can be no criticism of the conduct of the respondent – where the conduct of the applicant and her legal advisers is “appalling” – where there is an obvious prejudice to the respondent in granting the application – where the applicant has been found to lack bona fides – where the interests of justice demand that the application be refused – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where in the further alternative the…