Hearnes & Jellets

Case [2020] FCCA 2722


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HEARNES & JELLETS [2020] FCCA 2722
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application for review of Registrar’s decision not to urgently list substantive application – where applicant did not seek abridgment of time – where applicant did not seek exemption from compliance with rule pertaining to service of application – where the allocation of the hearing date is an administrative act – Registrar’s decision is a non-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction to review – application for review dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.102, 103, 104

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr. 4.03, 4.05, 6.19, 20.00A, 20.02,

20.03, 22A.02

Cases cited:

Bizuneh v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 42; (2003) 128 FCA 353

Myers & Myers [2011] FMCAfam 1104

Paramasiviam v Randwick City Council [2005] FCA 369

Quong & Rush [2017] FCCA 1765

Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd [2010] FCAFC 47

Vibbard & Garcia [2012] FamCAFC 114

Zeller & Whitby [2011] FMCAfam 431

Applicant: MR HEARNES
Respondent: MS JELLETS
File Number: MLC 8927 of 2020
Judgment of: Judge C E Kirton QC
Hearing date: 4 September 2020
Date of Last Submission: 4 September 2020
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 5 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Swann
Solicitors for the Applicant: Zervos Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Eley
Solicitors for the Respondent: Sayer Jones

ORDERS

  1. The Father’s Application for Review of the exercise of power by a Registrar, filed on 24 August 2020 be dismissed.

  2. No Order as to costs.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hearnes & Jellets is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 8927 of 2020

MR HEARNES

Applicant

And

MS JELLETS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application by the Applicant Father (Father) for review of a Registrar’s decision with respect to an abridgment of time to hear a parenting application.  The application was listed on 4 September 2020.  The primary application has been given a first return date in the Duty List on 24 November 2020. The Father seeks an abridgment of time and that his parenting application be given urgent consideration[1].

    [1]Initiating Application, filed by the Father, 18.8.20, p.1.

Synopsis

  1. I have determined that:

    (a)The Father’s Application for Review of the exercise of power by a Registrar, filed on 24 August 2020 (Review Application) be dismissed; and

    (b)There be no Order as to costs.

Background

  1. The Father is aged 43 and was born in Country B.  The Father has two children from a previous relationship: C, aged 10 (C) and D, aged 7 (D).  The Father spends…

Continue reading Hearnes & Jellets

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hearnes and Jellets [2020] FCCA 2722
Case
[2020] FCCA 2722
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Father sought a review of a Registrar's decision not to urgently list a substantive application. The proceedings were before Judge C E Kirton QC in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the Registrar's decision was a reviewable decision. The Father had not sought an abridgment of time or an exemption from the rules concerning the service of applications.

The Court reasoned that the allocation of a hearing date is an administrative act, not a judicial one. Consequently, the Registrar's decision was deemed a non-reviewable administrative decision. As such, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision.

The Father's Application for Review was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Father’s Application for Review of the exercise of power by a Registrar, filed on 24 August 2020 be dismissed.

2.

No Order as to costs.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.