Cadogan and Child Support Registrar

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CADOGAN & CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

[2010] FamCAFC 89

FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Application for extension of time to appeal – Short delay – Notices refused filing in the Registry – No reasons available at the time of hearing – Respondents do not object to the application – Leave granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPELLANT:

Mr Cadogan

RESPONDENT:

Child Support Registrar

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

10301

2009

APPEAL NUMBER:

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

29 April 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

May J

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2010

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Federal Magistrates Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

29 January 2010

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2010] FMCAfam 406

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Australian Government Solicitor

Orders

The time within which the father may file a Notice of Appeal against the orders of Federal Magistrate Slack made on 29 January 2010 be extended to on or before 4:00pm on 10 May 2010.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Cadogan & Child Support Registrar is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

Appeal Number: NA 46 of 2010
File Number: BRC 10301 of 2009

Mr Cadogan

Appellant

And

Child Support Registrar

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an application filed on 17 March 2010, Mr Cadogan seeks that a notice of appeal “sent on 24 Feb 2010 be confirmed as being delivered within time” together with a number of orders in relation to a child support assessment debt. With respect to the orders sought in relation to the child support assessment debt, it is not appropriate for me to consider that aspect of the application on this occasion. Those applications will be considered at the same time as the appeal.
On 29 January 2010 Federal Magistrate Slack made orders in relation to the enforcement of a child support assessment debt. I do not have a copy of the Federal Magistrate’s reasons. It seems there was a problem with the transcription service on the day of the hearing.
Mr Cadogan wishes to appeal against the enforcement orders. To be within time, the appeal should have been filed on 26 February 2010. It is Mr Cadogan’s position that he was within time.
On 23 February 2010 Mr Cadogan attempted to file a notice of appeal but this was apparently refused. The notice may have been in the wrong form.
The next day, on 24 February 2010 Mr Cadogan sent the correct forms to the Registry by post. For some reason the appeal documents were sent to the Federal Magistrate’s chambers and later returned unfiled on or about 4 March 2010.
In any event, by the time the form was received in the Registry, it was out of time. Therefore, Mr Cadogan needs leave to file his appeal out of time.
It is clear the delay in filing is very short. Mr Cadogan has provided an explanation for the delay which, partly, is not of his making. He has filed a further affidavit this morning explaining these events. There is no reason why I ought not give Mr Cadogan leave to file his appeal.
It is necessary for me to consider two matters; first the prejudice to the respondents and secondly the merits of the appeal. In relation to the former, I have been provided with a letter from the Australian Government Solicitor dated 28 April 2010, where it is clear that they do not oppose and, in fact, consent to Mr Cadogan being granted leave.
As to the merits of the appeal, it is somewhat difficult to assess that without the benefit of seeing the reasons for judgment of the Federal Magistrate. However, I have seen Mr Cadogan’s draft notice of appeal and it is clear that he raises some arguable grounds.
For these reasons, I have determined to grant him leave to file the notice of appeal out of time.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court.

Associate:

Date: 11 May 2010

The matter involved a father, Cadogan, who sought to appeal against decisions made by the Child Support Registrar, which were upheld by Federal Magistrate Slack on 29 January 2010. Cadogan argued for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the Registrar's orders. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether the extension should be granted.

The court had to consider the provisions of the Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999, particularly section 65, which outlines the time limits for appeals and the circumstances under which extensions may be granted. The central issue was whether Cadogan's delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently justified to warrant an extension of time. Factors considered included whether Cadogan had a reasonable excuse for the delay, and whether the Registrar or the other party would be prejudiced by the extension.

The court found that Cadogan had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that Cadogan had been represented by legal counsel and was aware of the time limits for appeals. Despite Cadogan's arguments about the complexity of the case and his efforts to engage with the legal process, the court was not persuaded that these factors constituted a reasonable excuse. Consequently, the court declined to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.

The court's decision was based on the principles that time limits for appeals are strictly enforced unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The orders of the court included denying Cadogan's application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the Federal Magistrate's orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established