GP v The Hon Justice Bryant Chief Justice of the Family Court & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 272

Replacement Transcript

[2007] HCATrans 272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S82 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

GP

Plaintiff

and

THE HON JUSTICE BRYANT CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FAMILY COURT

First Defendant

THE HON JUSTICE BOLAND APPEALS JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT

Second Defendant

THE HON JUSTICE WARNICK APPEALS JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT

Third Defendant

RL

Fourth Defendant

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 28 MAY 2007, AT 9.54 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GP appeared in person.

MR A. MARKUS:   If your Honour pleases, I appear for the first, second and third‑named defendants.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR MARKUS:   As your Honour would be aware, my clients have entered submitting appearances in this matter and I am here today representing my clients as a matter of courtesy to the Court in the event that your Honour requires some assistance by way of information or documents.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you, Mr Markus.

MR MARKUS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   The Deputy Registrar has certified that the solicitor for the fourth defendant has indicated that that defendant will submit to the order of the Court, save as to costs.  Sir, I have read the material that you have filed.

GP:   Would it be possible to pick up the volume a little bit because I can hardly hear you?

HIS HONOUR:   I have read all the material you have filed.  Is there anything you wish to say orally in addition to what is contained in what you have filed?

GP:   No, your Honour.  I have submitted quite a lot and I apologise for that except to stress that my daughter is in need of help which she has been refused in the Family Court and I hardly have to add anything else to what I have already written in my submissions.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.

On 19 March 2007 the plaintiff filed an application to show cause seeking that the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia made on 28 September 2006 in Appeal No EA 50 of 2006 be removed into a Full Court of this Court, that one of them be quashed and that related relief be granted.

The first three defendants are judges of the Family Court of Australia who are parties to the orders of 28 September 2006.  The fourth defendant is a person who is the plaintiff’s former wife and the mother of the plaintiff’s children.  The defendants submit to any order except as to costs.  The plaintiff desires to have the present fourth defendant removed from the proceedings and to have Robert James Walsh substituted.  He is described as Pastor of the Parramatta Potters House.

The Full Court in its orders of 28 September 2006 dealt with complaints by the plaintiff about four judgments delivered by three separate judges of the Family Court.  The plaintiff in broad terms asserts that the Family Court had failed to deal with matters relating to the upbringing of his children.  One primary focus of the plaintiff’s application is his concern about the influence of Potters House on his daughter, Esther.  According to the plaintiff, Potters House is a sect from which he was expelled in 1994.  He says that it presents a danger to Esther’s wellbeing.

In paragraph 31 of an affidavit dated 12 March 2007 the plaintiff says that in November 2006 he made an application for special leave to appeal to this Court but had to abandon it:

because I could not prepare my submission in time for a number of reasons.  One reason was that I had to sit for my exams in November 2006.  The main reason was that I read a number of reports published in The Age newspaper about the attempt by the Brethren sect to influence the decisions of the Family Court.  That information has caused me a great dilemma about what to do next.

The first reason is vague and does not account for the period from November to 19 March 2007 when these proceedings began.  The other reason is immaterial to applications to this Court.  The plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained why he did not proceed in the ordinary way by seeking special leave to appeal from the orders under attack within the period stipulated in rule 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules, namely “28 days” rather than applying merely five months after that period has expired for orders nisi.

He has not satisfactorily explained why he has delayed in the manner he has.  He raises what purport to be various constitutional and other legal questions but he has not identified any error made in the Family Court which would suggest that his application has any prospects of success were it to be removed into the Full Court of this Court.

Accordingly, the application to show cause and the summons are dismissed with costs.

MR MARKUS:   I am not sure that the costs order is appropriate in view of the fact that ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Because of the Family Court background?

MR MARKUS:   That is one reason the defendant’s have submitted, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, very well.  I amend that order.

The order of the Court will be, the application to show cause and the summons are dismissed.

Thank you, Mr Markus, and thank you, Sir.

AT 10.01 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED