Helmold & Mariya

[2025] FedCFamC1A 127

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Helmold & Mariya [2025] FedCFamC1A 127

Appeal from:	Helmold & Mariya [2025] FedCFamC2F 858
Appeal number:	NAA 268 of 2025
File number:	MLC 12579 of 2023
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	16 July 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the applicant seeks an extension of time to obtain the transcript – Requirement to file transcript dispensed with – Where the applicant seeks an expansion of the contents of the Appeal Book – Leave granted to file a Contested Appeal Book – Application otherwise dismissed.
Number of paragraphs:	9
Date of hearing:	16 July 2025
Place:	Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Applicant:	Self-represented litigant
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Chia (direct brief)

ORDERS

NAA 268 of 2025
MLC 12579 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR HELMOLD

Applicant

AND:

MS MARIYA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Orders 1 and 2 of the orders made by the appeal judicial registrar on 2 July 2025 are discharged.

2.The applicant has leave to serve documents on the respondent in relation to the appeal by sending a copy via email to the email address of her lawyers, as well as lodging documents on the portal.

3.The application for leave to rely on the amended affidavit sworn 25 July 2025 is stood over for hearing with the appeal.

4.The applicant has leave to file a Contested Appeal Book containing the existing material he says should properly be in the Appeal Book.

5.The Amended Application in an Appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Helmold & Mariya has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALDRIDGE J:

1. This is an Amended Application in an Appeal in which the applicant seeks a number of orders in relation to the appeal which is fixed for hearing in the last week of August this year.

2. In the course of argument, I indicated I would make orders along the lines of the first two paragraphs of the application. Those orders seek an extension of time in which to lodge the transcript of the trial.

3. The order I propose making will simply dispense with the need for the transcript but if the applicant is able to obtain it in time, he can still file it and rely on it. I have explained to him however that if he does not have the transcript, he may be in some difficulty in establishing what happened at the hearing because then the only record the Court would have of the hearing would be that contained within the reasons of the primary judge.

4. The next order sought by the applicant is that pending the determination of the appeal, the child be placed back on the airport watchlist. The orders of the primary judge provided for the removal of the child’s name from that list. No application has been made to the primary judge for a stay of proceedings. That is not necessarily essential because every court has the ability to preserve the subject matter of the dispute that is before it. However, the orders of the primary judge were made on 8 May 2025. There is no evidence that indicates to me that the child is at risk of being removed to an overseas country permanently prior to the determination of the appeal and I will not make that order.

5. The next order sought by the applicant is an order permitting him to serve the respondent by email, as well as by lodging documents on the portal. I am not sure of the extent or need for me to make an order to that effect, but I will make an order permitting the applicant to serve any document he wishes to serve on the respondent in relation to the appeal by sending a copy by email to the address of her lawyers as well as lodging the document on the portal.

6. The next order sought by the applicant is an order that no state authority enforce breach of any restraining orders or bail conditions by him, or issue warrants against him without leave of the Full Cout. This Court has no power to control state entities or police forces, or the federal police for that matter, and I will not make that order.

7. Order 6 on the application seeks leave to rely at the appeal on an affidavit sworn 25 July. That application will be stood over for determination at the hearing of the appeal.

8. The last order sought is the applicant has leave to issue seven subpoenas. It is an extremely rare event for a subpoena to be issued in relation to an appeal. Indeed, it is most exceptional and the Court would need to be persuaded that it is an extraordinary case that would justify such a step. This is because the purpose of the appeal is to determine whether or not there was an error on the part of the primary judge and not to conduct another primary hearing. Facts are established by the primary judge at the hearing before him or her, subject to leave to call further evidence on appeal.

9. The applicant has done his best to persuade me that there is material that has been omitted from the Appeal Book. If there is existing material he feels has been improperly removed from the Appeal Book, the applicant is at liberty to file a Contested Appeal Book with all the material he thinks should have properly been included in the Appeal Book but is not. It will then be for the Full Court hearing the appeal to determine at the appeal whether or not it will have regard to that material. However, I am not persuaded in the circumstances that a case has been established for the issue of the subpoenas.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.

Associate:

Dated:       21 July 2025