HAYKAL & KRAWIEC - [2016] FamCAFC 60

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAYKAL & KRAWIEC

[2016] FamCAFC 60

FAMILY LAW –APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL –Review of the decision of a Registrar –Where the appellant made several applications for an extension of time in which to file appeal books – Where the Registrar dismissed these applications – Where the appeal was deemed abandoned – Review of Registrar’s decision is hearing de novo – Whether the appellant adequately explained the delay in filing the appeal books – Whether the appeal should be allowed in the light of case management principles – Where the appeal has merit – Where there is little prospect the appellant will file the appeal books on time – Where the public interest and the private interest of the respondent outweigh this merit – Application in an appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44, 102QB, 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.40

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84
Jackamarra v Krakouer & Anor (1998) 195 CLR 516

APPELLANT:

Mr Haykal

RESPONDENT:

Ms Krawiec

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

731

2009

APPEAL NUMBER:

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

21 April 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Aldridge J

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2016

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT ORDERS MADE:

1 March 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Camilleri

Orders

The Application in an Appeal filed on 11 March 2016 by Mr Haykal is dismissed.
Mr Haykal is to pay the costs of Ms Krawiec of the Application in an Appeal, fixed in the sum of $1400.00, within 28 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Haykal & Krawiec has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 65 of 2015
File Number: SYC 731 of 2009

Mr Haykal

Appellant

And

Ms Krawiec

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Mr Haykal (“the appellant”) seeks to review a decision of the Appeals Registrar made on 1 March 2016 in which the appellant’s Applications in an Appeal filed on 2 September 2015, 14 October 2015 and 30 November 2015, each of which sought an extension of time to file the appeal books, were dismissed. The effect of that order is that the appellant’s appeal stands abandoned from the close of business on 3 September 2015.
In order to understand the application it is necessary to give some history of the matter.
On 16 April 2015 Watts J gave judgment in proceedings between the appellant and Ms Krawiec (the respondent”). There were two matters before his Honour. The first was whether or not the court should make an order staying an order made on 17 February 2015. That order refused the appellant leave pursuant to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read HAYKAL & KRAWIEC and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FamCAFC 60
Decision Date: 21 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haykal and Krawiec is a family law case where the Court of Appeal reviewed a decision of a Registrar who dismissed several applications for an extension of time made by the appellant, Mr Haykal, in relation to the filing of appeal books. The appeal was subsequently deemed abandoned. The appeal was heard de novo, meaning that the Court of Appeal considered the matter afresh, without reference to the previous decision of the Registrar.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Haykal adequately explained the delay in filing the appeal books and whether the appeal should be allowed in light of case management principles, despite its merit, given the little prospect of timely filing of the appeal books. The Court also considered the public interest and the private interest of the respondent, Ms Krawiec, in weighing the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Haykal had not adequately explained the delay in filing the appeal books, and the little prospect of timely filing outweighed the merits of the appeal. The Court considered the public interest in the timely and efficient resolution of family law disputes and the private interest of Ms Krawiec in having the matter resolved without further delay. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and Mr Haykal was ordered to pay Ms Krawiec's costs of the Application in an Appeal, fixed at $1400.00, within 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in an Appeal filed on 11 March 2016 by Mr Haykal is dismissed.

Mr Haykal is to pay the costs of Ms Krawiec of the Application in an Appeal, fixed in the sum of $1400.00, within 28 days.

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.