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
The Father’s Application for Review of the exercise of power by a Registrar, filed on 24 August 2020 be dismissed.
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
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
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
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
- AGLC
- Hearnes and Jellets [2020] FCCA 2722
- Case
- [2020] FCCA 2722
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.