Haykal and Krawiec

The Family Court of Australia heard an appeal from Mr Haykal against an order made by Justice Murphy on 18 May 2012, dismissing his parenting application. Mr Haykal sought an extension of time to appeal against the order. The mother, Ms Krawiec, opposed the application. The central legal issues before the court were whether the time extension should be granted considering the father's delay in filing the appeal and the potential prejudice to the mother if the extension was allowed. The court considered three factors in determining whether to grant the extension: the explanation for the delay, the potential merit of the appeal, and the prejudice to the mother if the extension was granted.

The court found that while the delay was not significantly explained, the appeal did not appear to be demonstrably hopeless. Given the low potential for success, the court considered it reasonable for the mother to oppose the extension and for her to be protected from financial prejudice if the appeal were to proceed. The court decided that as a condition for granting the extension, the father must comply with previous costs orders made against him. The father agreed to this condition, and the court concluded that he should be given the opportunity to be heard in court. The court granted the extension on the condition that the father complied with the costs orders and paid security for the costs of the appeal.

The court ordered that Mr Haykal must pay the respondent's agreed assessed costs, lodge security for the costs of the appeal, and comply with previous costs orders before the time for lodging an appeal would be extended. The court also ordered that if either party appealed the costs orders, those appeals would be consolidated with the appeal against the parenting orders. The father was responsible for preparing the appeal books, which were to include specific documents in a particular order. The court further ordered that the father's solicitors must file and serve copies of the appeal books within a specified timeframe. The court also noted that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Haykal & Krawiec had been approved by the Chief Justice.