Collins & Ricardo (No 2)

[2014] FamCAFC 94

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLLINS & RICARDO (NO. 2) [2014] FamCAFC 94

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an Appeal – Whether to provide audio transcript of proceedings – Where proceedings relate to Orders that are not the subject of the present appeal – HELD – Application dismissed.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): r 22.36

Collins & Ricardo [2014] FamCAFC 53

APPLICANT: Mr Collins

RESPONDENT: Ms Ricardo

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4959 of 2009

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 15 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 21 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Ryan

HEARING DATE: 21 May 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 12 January 2012

LOWER COURT MNC: [2012] FamCA 11

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That the Application in an Appeal filed by Mr Collins on 14 May 2014 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Collins & Ricardo (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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

Appeal Number: EA 15 of 2012
File Number: SYC 4959 of 2009

Mr Collins

Applicant

And

Ms Ricardo

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons were delivered orally.

2. This is an application in an appeal filed by Mr Collins (“the applicant”) on 14 May 2014.  It is his application that the court provides him with “… a copy of 30 mins of audio transcripts of Justice Coleman of the 30/8/12”.

3. Ms Ricardo (“the respondent”) opposes the application.

4. The applicant relies on his affidavit filed the same day.  It is brief and, excluding formal parts, is as follows:

   1.I ask the court to supply a copy of 30 mins of audio transcripts of Justice Coleman of the 30/8/12.

   2.These transcripts have been ordered and paid for by myself.

   3.9 days of Audio transcripts of Justice Watts were supplied in December 2012, This request is no different (sic).

Background Facts

1. So as to understand the gravamen of the application, some background history must be considered.  This is helpfully set out in Finn J’s reasons for judgment published on 20 March 2014 (Collins & Ricardo [2014] FamCAFC 53) as follows:

   1.

   This matter was listed before us today pursuant to letters written on

   
   

   5 February 2014 by the Appeal Registrar to both the appellant and respondent to the appeal, and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The letters from the Registrar advised the parties that the matter was to be listed before us today so we could consider whether to dismiss for want of prosecution an appeal filed by [Mr Collins] acting on his own behalf. (I will refer to [Mr Collins] either as “the father” or “the appellant”). The appeal is against parenting orders made by Watts J on 12 January 2012 after a trial of some nine days in mid to late 2011. 

   2.Watts…