FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Lange v De Lange [2024] FCA 158
File number(s): QUD 40 of 2024 Judgment of: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 29 February 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for registration of New Zealand judgment under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – requirement to file a hard copy judgment – where electronic copy of judgment filed with application – where hard copy of judgment subsequently filed Legislation: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) s 67
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.21(1)(d), 2.25
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulation 2012 (Cth) reg 17(2)(b))
Cases cited: Forlongs Furnishings Ltd v Thom [2022] FedCFamC2G 94; 366 FLR 219
Herzfeld P and Prince T, Interpretation (2nd edition, Thomson Reuters, 2020)
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Number of paragraphs: 16 Solicitor for the Applicant: Stonegate Legal ORDERS
QUD 40 of 2024 BETWEEN: DALENE DE LANGE
Applicant
AND: MARTHINUS GARHARDUS DE LANGE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating application dated 18 January 2024 be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J:
This is an application under s 67(1) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) (‘TTP Act’) to register a judgment of the Family Court Division of the District Court of New Zealand.
The Applicant lodged the application on 18 January 2024 through the Federal Court’s online filing system. Appended to that application, as part of the same file, was an electronic copy of the New Zealand judgment. The application was not accepted for filing until 29 January 2024. A sealed hard copy of the New Zealand judgment was then physically filed on 13 February 2024.
Certain requirements attend the filing of a New Zealand judgment as part of an application under s 67(1) of the TTP Act. Section 67(5)(b) of the TTP Act requires that such an application be made ‘in accordance with the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulation’. For the purposes of that provision, reg 17(2)(b) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulation 2012 (Cth) (‘TTP Regulation’) prescribes that:
(b) a sealed, certified or otherwise authenticated copy of the NZ judgement must be physically filed at the court in hard copy:
(i) with the application; or
(ii) if the application is filed by facsimile or email—within 15 working days after the application is filed.
From the chronology of filings sketched at [2] it can be seen that the Applicant made two attempts to file the New Zealand judgment: the initial, electronic filing of the judgment alongside the registration application itself on 18 January 2024; and the subsequent, physical filing of a hard copy of the judgment on 13 February 2024.
For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that either attempt satisfied either of the alternative requirements in reg 17(2)(b) of the TTP Regulation. Accordingly, I find…
Continue reading De Lange v De Lange
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- De Lange v De Lange [2024] FCA 158
- Case
- [2024] FCA 158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the failure to initially provide a hard copy of the judgment, despite the applicant subsequently filing one, was sufficient to dismiss the application for registration. The court was required to interpret the legislative requirements and determine if the applicant's actions constituted a procedural default that warranted dismissal.
In determining the matter, the court examined the statutory provisions of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 and the accompanying rules. The court noted that the Act and its rules mandated that a hard copy of the judgment be filed alongside the application for registration. Despite the applicant eventually filing the hard copy, the court found that this did not rectify the procedural error. The court held that the failure to comply with the legislative requirements at the time of the initial application was a fundamental procedural default. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for registration.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The originating application dated 18 January 2024 be dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
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.