Esperanza v Gimenez

[2014] HCASL 208

ESPERANZA

v

GIMENEZ

[2014] HCASL 208
M69/2014

1. The applicant and the respondent were formerly wife and husband.  On 20 December 2012, the Family Court of Australia (Cronin J) made orders that the respondent pay the applicant $21,477.80, holding that that payment satisfy all obligations under orders previously made in property proceedings between the parties.

2. On 28 May 2014, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of Cronin J. Rule 22.03 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) provides that a Notice of Appeal must be filed within 28 days after the order appealed from is made. The applicant filed her application approximately16 months after the expiry of the 28 day period.

3. On 4 July 2014, Strickland J refused the application.  His Honour did so on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any adequate reasons for both failing to file her Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time and failing to file the extension application more expeditiously.  Further, it had not been demonstrated that there would be an arguable case on appeal.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of Cronin J and of Strickland J. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

5. The applicant requires an enlargement of time within which to lodge an application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The application discloses no reason to doubt the correctness of either decision.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  An enlargement of time would, therefore, be futile and is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler