Helmold & Mariya (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 163

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163

Appeal from: Helmold & Mariya [2025] FedCFamC2F 858
Appeal number NAA 268 of 2025
File number MLC 12579 of 2023
Judgment of: ALDRIDGE, CAMPTON & CHRISTIE JJ
Date of judgment: 12 September 2025
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the appellant husband appeals against parenting orders made in his absence – Where the appellant was removed from the courtroom and alleges he was denied procedural fairness – Where the appellant was afforded ample opportunity to present his case – Where the appellant was warned numerous times at trial about the need to conduct himself properly – No denial of procedural fairness established – Where the appellant alleges bias on the part of the trial judge – Where a reading of the transcript reveals no such bias – The use of generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Family Law proceedings – Where the appellant deployed generative AI to prepare his written documents – Where these written documents cite fictitious cases – Where this violates the obligations of a party to litigation not to mislead the court or their opponent – Where this use of AI also has the potential to breach Pt XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where all grounds of appeal are misconceived and without merit – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt XIVB, s 102NA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 26

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth) r 13.53

Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barrister) Rules 2015 (VIC)

Cases cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHV 1383 (Admin)

Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2005] HCA 55

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81

May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178

Number of paragraphs: 50
Date of hearing: 28 August 2025
Place: Heard in Melbourne, delivered in Sydney
The Appellant: Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Chia
Solicitor for the Respondent: Legal Aid Victoria

ORDERS

NAA 268 of 2025
MLC 12579 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MR HELMOLD

Appellant
AND:

MS MARIYA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, CAMPTON & CHRISTIE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The balance of the Amended Application in an Appeal filed on 9 July 2025 is dismissed.

2.The appeal is 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…

Continue reading Helmold & Mariya (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1A 163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2), the appellant, Mr. Helmold, appealed against parenting orders made in his absence. The primary judge had removed the appellant from the courtroom, leading him to claim a denial of procedural fairness. Additionally, Mr. Helmold alleged bias on the part of the trial judge. The court had to decide whether the appellant's procedural fairness and rights to a fair hearing were violated and whether the trial judge was biased.

The court found that the appellant was not denied procedural fairness as he had ample opportunity to present his case and had been warned numerous times about the need to conduct himself properly. The transcript of the trial did not reveal any bias on the part of the trial judge. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant's use of generative Artificial Intelligence to prepare his written documents was problematic, as these documents cited fictitious cases, potentially misleading the court or his opponent, and possibly breaching Pt XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court concluded that all grounds of appeal were misconceived and without merit.

The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs, as no costs schedules were filed. The primary judge's findings were unassailable, and the appellant had failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the primary judge. The appellant's complaints about the respondent's evidence changing over time and the court permitting the respondent to rely on it were misconceived, and no error was demonstrated. The appellant's argument that the primary judge ignored evidence supporting him was also dismissed, as the circumstances of the case did not require the primary judge to place any weight on the alleged concession.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 268 of 2025

MLC 12579 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR HELMOLD

Appellant

AND:

MS MARIYA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE, CAMPTON & CHRISTIE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The balance of the Amended Application in an Appeal filed on 9 July 2025 is dismissed.

2. The appeal is 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).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant has not demonstrated any matter which would satisfy the test set out in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at [8].Failure to consider the appellant’s evidence The primary judge twice adjourned the hearing to allow the appellant the opportunity to file material. The appellant did indeed file an affidavit with the assistance of lawyers on 5 March 2025. It was clear that the appellant was aggrieved by the content of that document (which he had amended by hand) but that was a matter between the appellant and his former lawyers. The appellant and the lawyer who appeared at the trial on his behalf prepared a document in the lead up to the trial, setting out the appellant’s concerns and proposals, which was accepted by the primary judge as an aide-memoire. The appellant says he was prevented from presenting an affirmative case. It is more accurate to say that the appellant did not avail himself of the opportunity to present a case. No error is demonstrated.Ignoring the appellant’s urgent application The appellant filed an Application in a Proceeding and affidavit on 11 March 2025. That application was appropriately listed at the final hearing since it sought interim parenting orders, despite the matter being listed before the Court less than 2 months later for final determination. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the appellant sought the following:1.Immediate Relocation of Child:That [the child], be relocated to [the appellant’s] home at [B Street, Suburb C], until a final decision is made. This is essential for providing a stable environment.2.Prevention of Parental Alienation:That the court addresses the issue of parental alienation and takes immediate action to prevent [the respondent] from continuing her harmful behavior.3.Prevention of Duress:That the court takes immediate steps to prevent [the respondent] from using the child as a means to exert duress on [the appellant].4.Disclosure of Financial Medical Schooling and Travel Information:That [the respondent] disclose her financial records INCLUDING travel star points and overseas accounts with investments from October 2023, March 2025 including bank statements Tax statements and few shopping receipts. Medical records and Schooling achievemnts dates attended from October 2023 - March 2025 Additionally, disclosure of any travel information, including the child's movement list from DHA and any international travel, is sought. Under name of [the child]5.Coercive Relocation Order:That [the respondent]be compelled to relocate within 15km of [the appellant’s] home to ensure ease of access to schooling and parks for the child.6.Restoration of Privacy and Good Name:That [the respondent] be held accountable for the breach of privacy and falsified claims. An apology is sought to help restore my reputation and address the damage done. (As per the original) At the time the appellant filed that application the parties had been separated for seventeen months, during which time the child had lived with the respondent and spent no time with the appellant. There was no objective urgency in the application which the appellant made for the child to live with him. The immediate listing of that application was not an exercise of the judicial function of the primary judge and, in any event, its listing on the first day of the trial was an appropriate course. No error is demonstrated.Systemic barriers to participation

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no admissible evidence which establishes that the primary judge knew that the respondent had conceded on 24 September 2024 that the child “is not reminded of the [the appellant]” by her. However, even if this had been established at the hearing before the primary judge, the circumstances of this case would not have required the primary judge to place any weight on the concession. The primary judge found that the respondent and the child had left the home following family violence, and the appellant had been steadfast in his attempts to locate them (notwithstanding the terms of an Interim Family Violence Order). It is unremarkable that the respondent may not have reminded the child of the appellant in these circumstances. Hence any failure by the primary judge to have regard to the respondent’s alleged conduct does not amount to error.Conclusions It follows from the above discussion that none of the matters identified by the appellant have established error on the part of the primary judge and the appeal will be dismissed. COSTS No costs schedules were filed in accordance with r 13.53 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and no application for costs was made. It follows that there will be no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The appellant was denied the opportunity to object to the tender and to make submissions about the content of the tendered documents as a consequence of the matter being concluded in his absence. However, prior to his exclusion, the appellant said, on a number of occasions, that he disputed the account of the respondent and the police. We accept that the date of production for the subpoenas meant that there may have been more recent documents which would have been relevant to the disposition of some of the charges against the appellant. However, it is important to understand that the primary judge’s findings were not dependent upon an acceptance by her that all the charges against the appellant had resulted in convictions. The primary judge did not make a specific finding in respect of the individual charges. The primary judge based her conclusions about family violence on the appellant’s conviction and his actions in seeking, from police and child welfare authorities, details of the respondent’s whereabouts. Separately, the primary judge considered the evidence of the appellant’s messages attached to numerous bank transfers and concluded (independently of the outcome in any other court) that she was persuaded these too met the definition of family violence. The primary judge’s conclusions are unassailable.Alteration of affidavits and false allegations The appellant’s complaint (raised by Ground 8) is two-fold:(a)The respondent’s evidence changed over time; and(b)The Court should not have permitted the respondent to rely on the evidence. The respondent filed an affidavit about a month prior to the trial. No formal objection was taken to the respondent relying on that affidavit at the hearing before the primary judge. The fact that the appellant does not accept the accuracy of its contents does not establish error. This contention is misconceived, and no error is demonstrated.Ignored evidence supporting the appellant (selective omission) The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to take into account a material (uncontroversial) fact. The appellant submitted that on 24 September 2024 the respondent’s lawyers conceded that the child “is not reminded of [the appellant]” by the respondent. There is no admissible evidence which establishes that the primary judge knew that the respondent had conceded on 24 September 2024 that the child “is not reminded of the [the appellant]” by her. However, even if this had been established at the hearing before the primary judge, the circumstances of this case would not have required the primary judge to place any weight on the concession. The primary judge found that the respondent and the child had left the home following family violence, and the appellant had been steadfast in his attempts to locate them (notwithstanding the terms of an Interim Family Violence Order). It is unremarkable that the respondent may not have reminded the child of the appellant in these circumstances. Hence any failure by the primary judge to have regard to the respondent’s alleged conduct does not amount to error.Conclusions