Hogai & Galit
[2025] FedCFamC1A 122
•18 July 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Hogai & Galit [2025] FedCFamC1A 122
Appeal from: Galit & Hogai [2025] FedCFamC2F 528 Appeal number: NAA 237 of 2025 File number: MLC 642 of 2023 Judgment of: AUSTIN J Date of judgment: 18 July 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – Where the appellant seeks an expansion of the contents of the appeal book – Leave granted to the appellant to file and serve a contested appeal book – Where the final appeal hearing is listed in September – Where the appellant effectively seeks an adjournment of the hearing by five months – Where the appellant’s asserted medical evidence is not corroborated by any expert medical opinion evidence – Where the appellant wants time to acquire the financial capacity to afford the transcript of the original hearing – Where the transcript is not evidently needed to prosecute the grounds of appeal and the appeal can be prosecuted without it – Where the appeal remains listed in September – Application otherwise dismissed. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 5.3, rr 13.22, 13.38
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 67
Number of paragraphs: 34 Date of hearing: On the papers in chambers Place: Newcastle The Appellant: Litigant in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Domantay Legal Pty Ltd Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Aitken Partners ORDERS
NAA 237 of 2025
MLC 642 of 2023FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBETWEEN: MR HOGAI
Appellant
AND: MS GALIT
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
AUSTIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave is granted to the appellant to file and serve in digital format, by 28 July 2025, a Contested Appeal Book containing:
(a)the affidavit he filed on 10 March 2025;
(b)the Amended Response he filed on 10 March 2025; and
(c)the three bundles of documents he tried to tender during the trial.
2.Orders 1 and 2 made by the appeal registrar on 7 July 2025 are discharged.
3.The appellant may prosecute the appeal without transcript and the provisions of r 13.22(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) will not apply.
4.Otherwise, the Application in an Appeal filed on 11 July 2025 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).
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 Hogai & Galit has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AUSTIN J:
These reasons explain the disposition of an Application in an Appeal filed by the appellant on 11 July 2025 seeking to, first, to vary the appeal registrar’s order with respect to the contents of the Appeal Book, and secondly, push back the hearing of the appeal by about five months, achieved by extending the pleading program ordered by the appeal registrar.
Background
Proceedings between the parties in respect of their children and their property were instituted under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in January 2023.
Following a trial in March 2025, final judgment was pronounced in both those proceedings on 29 April 2025. The appellant filed his appeal from that judgment on 26 May 2025.
On 7 July 2025, the appeal registrar made procedural orders in respect of the pending appeal which, relevantly, made orders for:
(a)the appellant to file and serve digital transcript of the trial by 28 July 2025 (Order 1), failing which the appeal is deemed abandoned under r 13.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) (Order 2);
(b)the appellant to file and serve his Summary of Argument and List of Authorities by 15 August 2025 (Order 3(a)); and
(c)the respondent to file and serve her Summary of Argument and List of Authorities by 29 August 2025 (Order 3(b)).
The appeal has since been listed for hearing on Tuesday 16 September 2025.
On 11 July 2025, the appellant filed an Application in an Appeal, supported by his affidavit, seeking these orders:
1. To update appeal book index as per the [appellant’s] draft appeal book index
2.To extend 5 months to file documents as per order 1 and order 3 [of the appeal registrar’s orders]
3. To revoke order 2 [of the appeal registrar’s orders]
(As per the original)
The appellant requested within the standard application form that his application be determined on the papers in the absence of the parties in accordance with r 13.38 and Pt 5.3 of the Rules, which request is granted.
Application to expand the Appeal Book
The evidence-in-chief adduced by the appellant in respect of this aspect of his application was as follows:
1.I was told by the [appeal registrar] during the procedural hearing that the court will prepare appeal book for me and then I noticed that the appeal book index that the appeal judicial registrar made is different with my draft appeal book index that I filed.
2.The appeal book index excluded a lot of important documents as my evidence to support my appeal to the final orders, particularly the email that I sent on 6 March 2025 showed that my trial affidavit was emailed to the Chambers [of the primary judge] and other parties before the deadline.
3.I emailed the [appeal registrar] and expressed my concern about this and requested the appeal book index should updated as per my draft appeal book index.
(Appellant’s affidavit filed 11/07/25, as per the original)
Aside from the email the appellant sent to the primary judge’s chambers on 6 March 2025, the appellant does not identify the “lot of important documents” which he believes should be included within the Appeal Book. An email sent to the primary judge’s chambers several days in advance of the trial could not be such an “important document”. In the days immediately preceding the trial, and then during the trial, the appellant unsuccessfully made numerous applications to vacate the hearing (at [36]–[37], [41] and [47]).
It is clear from the reasons for judgment that, by reason of his default in compliance with procedural orders and disclosure obligations, the appellant was forbidden from relying upon:
(a)his affidavit filed on 10 March 2025 (at [7], [39] and [44]);
(b)his Amended Response filed on 10 March 2025 (at [39] and [109]); and
(c)three bundles of previously undisclosed documents (at [50] and [58]).
It will be incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error by the primary judge in refusing him permission to rely upon those documents but, for the purpose of the appeal, the appellant should not be prevented from identifying the documents upon which he wished to rely.
The appeal registrar has already compiled the Appeal Book, the contents of which should not now be belatedly revised.
However, the appellant is granted leave to file and serve, in digital format, a Contested Appeal Book containing his affidavit filed on 10 March 2025, his Amended Response filed on 10 March 2025, and the three bundles of documents he tried unsuccessfully to tender during the trial. He must do so by 28 July 2025.
Application to vacate the hearing date and delay the appeal by five months
The evidence-in-chief adduced by the appellant in respect of this aspect of his application was as follows:
4.I recently has been diagnosed with a blood condition and I always feel tired. I need to avoid stress in work and daily life as my family doctor advised.
5.Because I filed an appeal for the IVO to the County Court and will have a hearing [in late July 2025]. I feel too difficult to deal with 2 appeals at the same time due to my health condition.
…
10.I requested to extend 5 months’ time to file documents as per order 1 and order 3 [of the appeal registrar’s orders].
(Appellant’s affidavit filed 11/07/25, as per the original)
The Court is enjoined by statutory direction to acquit its appellate business quickly, inexpensively and efficiently (s 67(1)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)).
The appeal was filed on 26 May 2025 and is now listed for hearing on 16 September 2025, yet the appellant does not want the appeal heard until at least early 2026.
The only reason advanced by the appellant for such an indulgence is he feels tired and stressed, which feelings he does not want to exacerbate by conducting this appeal in parallel to another appeal in extraneous litigation instituted in a State court. The appellant’s asserted medical condition is not corroborated by any expert medical opinion evidence.
The respondent is entitled to the fruits of the litigation, decided by the primary judge in April 2025. Although the two judgments in respect of the parties’ children and the division of their property have not been stayed, the respondent should not be expected to have those judgments overshadowed by this pending appeal for many months longer than necessary.
The reason advanced for the delay of the appeal hearing is not good enough. The appeal hearing remains listed on 16 September 2025 and there will be no variation to the dates by which documents must be filed in readiness for the hearing.
Transcript relief
The appellant does not seek relief from the obligation to file and serve the digital transcript of the original hearing. Rather, due to his asserted impecuniosity, the appellant wants five extra months within which to file and serve the transcript and, in addition, the discharge of the order which stipulates the deemed abandonment of the appeal if he does not file and serve the transcript within the given time.
The appellant has investigated the cost of the transcript to approximate $5,000, which sum he deposes he cannot presently pay. Although he does not expressly say so, by implication, he expects he can procure the transcript if given five more months to acquire the financial capacity.
Cursory assessment of the appellant’s grounds of appeal reveals the transcript is inessential to the prosecution of his appeal.
Ground 1 contends the Australian litigation should not have been heard until parallel Country B litigation is complete.
Grounds 2 and 4 contend that Country B property is beyond the jurisdictional reach of Australian orders.
Grounds 3 and 5 contend that certain orders made by the primary judge are unenforceable.
Ground 6 appears to contend for an erroneous assessment of the parties’ contributions to an Australian property.
Grounds 7 and 8 appear to contend for discretionary error in the primary judge’s treatment of two other Australian properties.
Ground 9 alleges the superannuation splitting orders were manifestly unjust.
Ground 10 alleges the suite of financial orders were manifestly unjust.
Ground 11 alleges error in the treatment of a financial loss.
Grounds 12, 13, 14 and 15 allege the respondent gave false evidence in the extraneous State litigation.
Ground 16 contends for error in the primary judge’s refusal to adjourn the trial and dismiss the appellant’s application filed on 6 March 2025.
Grounds 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are not grounds of appeal at all, but rather statement of an alleged offer of settlement in advance of trial, which the appellant believes was “very generous”.
Since the transcript is not evidently needed to prosecute the grounds of appeal, the appellant need not be burdened with the cost of acquiring the transcript, which cost he can ill afford. Orders 1 and 2 made by the appeal registrar can be discharged and the appellant can prosecute the appeal without transcript.
I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Austin. Associate:
Dated: 18 July 2025
0
0
3