Hogai & Galit (No 4)

[2025] FedCFamC1A 175

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Hogai & Galit (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1A 175

Appeal from:

Order dated 11 August 2025

Appeal number:

NAA 426 of 2025

File number:

MLC 642 of 2023

Judgment of:

AUSTIN J

Date of judgment:

23 September 2025

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the applicant applied to stay substantive orders pending the outcome of his appeal from those orders – Where the primary judge granted a partial stay of the substantive orders – Where the applicant seeks leave to appeal from the stay orders – Where the appeal from the substantive orders was dismissed – Where the appeal from the stay orders is now entirely futile – Where there is no longer a viable justiciable controversy – Where the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the intended stay appeal – Application for leave to appeal and appeal summarily dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pts VII, VIII

Cases cited:

AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 278 CLR 512; [2023] HCA 26

Hogai & Galit (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 170

Number of paragraphs:

6

Date of hearing:

23 September 2025

Place:

Newcastle (via MS Teams)

The Applicant:

Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Swart

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Domantay Legal Pty Ltd

ORDERS

NAA 426 of 2025
MLC 642 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR HOGAI

Applicant

AND:

MS GALIT

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	AUSTIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal from the orders made on 11 August 2025 is refused and the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 18 September 2025 is dismissed.

2.The respondent’s application for party/party costs of these proceedings is dismissed.

NOTATION:

A.Reasons are not required by the respondent for Order 2 hereof.

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).

EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AUSTIN J:

1. The applicant’s appeal from substantive orders made on 29 April 2025 by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) determining causes of action between the parties in respect of their child and their property under Pt VII and Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) was dismissed on 18 September 2025 (Hogai & Galit (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 170).

2. While that appeal was still pending, the applicant made an application to the primary judge to stay the appealed orders, which was partially granted on 11 August 2025. Her Honour stayed one of the property settlement orders (Order 1) but otherwise affirmed the orders would operate with full force and effect pending the outcome of the appeal (Order 2).

3. On 8 September 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking leave to appeal from the stay decision. The intended appeal from the stay decision could only logically contend the primary judge erred by failing to stay all the appealed orders, as the applicant sought, but no such thread could be discerned from the grounds of appeal, the original three of which were revised to 14 grounds by an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 18 September 2025. The grounds seem designed to challenge the orders made on 29 April 2025, from which his original appeal has already been dismissed.

4. Upon dismissal of the substantive appeal, the partial stay granted on 11 August 2025 dissolved and all orders made on 29 April 2025 became enforceable. The applicant was unconvinced the stay appeal should then be dismissed because it was superfluous. To give him some reprieve to consider his position, the application for leave to appeal from the stay orders was listed for summary hearing the following week on account of it evincing no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant’s submissions, supposedly addressing the utility of the intended appeal, which were read from a prepared statement, were entertained but are rejected. The submissions were instead directed exclusively to the asserted invalidity of the final orders made on 29 April 2025.

5. This intended appeal from the stay decision is now entirely futile. In fact, there is no longer a viable justiciable controversy and so the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the intended stay appeal (AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 278 CLR 512 at [30], [32]–[35], [58], [66], [68]–[74] and [91]–[92]).

6. The application for leave to appeal from the stay decision should be summarily dismissed and the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 18 September 2025 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Austin.

Associate:

Dated:       23 September 2025