Forster & Forster

The case of *Forster & Forster* involved an appeal by the husband against interim property orders and parenting orders made by a Federal Magistrate. The husband sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal the property orders, and also appealed against a parenting order made during a period of adjournment. The wife sought costs against the husband.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband should be granted an extension of time to appeal the property orders, and whether leave to appeal the parenting order should be granted. The court was also required to determine the wife's application for costs.

Strickland J considered the principles for granting an extension of time to appeal, focusing on whether there was a substantial issue to be raised. His Honour found that the husband's proposed grounds of appeal related to practice and procedure, and that the husband demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Federal Magistrates Court's jurisdiction and powers, believing the court lacked jurisdiction and had acted discriminatorily. Consequently, his Honour was not satisfied that there was a substantial issue to be raised on appeal and concluded the husband would be wholly unsuccessful. Regarding the parenting order, his Honour granted leave for the husband to amend his Notice of Appeal to challenge a subsequent order that mirrored the one initially appealed, as the original order was no longer in existence.

The Amended Notice of Appeal concerning the property orders was dismissed. Leave was granted for the husband to further amend his Notice of Appeal to challenge the subsequent parenting order. The husband's application in a case was dismissed. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs in relation to the application in a case in the sum of $2,000. The wife's application for costs concerning the Amended Notice of Appeal was adjourned to a directions hearing, contingent on the husband filing a further amended notice of appeal.