Jenkins & Anor & Jenkins

[2012] FamCA 749

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JENKINS AND ANOR & JENKINS AND ANOR [2012] FamCA 749

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision – application for review dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms B Jenkins and Mr R Jenkins

RESPONDENT: Ms M Jenkins  and Mr C Jenkins

FILE NUMBER: AYC 286 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 14 August 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATE: 14 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: N/A

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N/A

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The applicant’s Application in a Case and the Application for a Review filed 30 July 2012 be dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jenkins & Jenkins has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: AYC 286 of 2007

Ms B Jenkins and Mr R Jenkins

Applicant

And

Ms M Jenkins  and Mr C Jenkins

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me today an Application in a Case and an Application for Review, both filed on 30 July 2012.  Both applications purport to seek to review the Order made by Registrar Riddiford on 11 May 2012.  I note that in the Application for Review, the Order is described as having been made on 11 June 2012, the correct date of the Order is in fact 11 May 2012.

2. Section C of the Application for Review requires details of orders sought to be reviewed, however the orders are not set out.  There is, however, reference to appeal number EA34 of 2010, file number AYC286 of 2007.  In section D of that application, in which the applicant is required to set out the orders sought, the orders sought are that the service costs order be summarily dismissed, that the illegally filed document of consent be removed from the Family Court registry, that the untested ICL’s report that has “perverted the course of justice against us” be removed from the Family Court registry file and  that “Strickland Appeal Judge ruling” that he finalised the costs order, and not a Registrar, be dismissed.

3. Part D of the Application in a Case requires the applicant or applicants to set out the orders they are seeking and if seeking a review the date of the order and the name of the judicial officer from whom that review is sought

4. What is set out by the applicants in that section is:

   Barrister T. Puckey was negligent when he stated we owned our own house and that the respondent is a bit more financial than we have ever been.  I believe he did this purely to make us look as having similar finances to get costs.  T. Puckey also failed to mention the fact we wanted mediation instead of a court case.  He knowingly misstated the facts.

5. Strickland J, having heard the appeal on 27 August 2010, made orders on 6 April 2011 dismissing the appeal and ordering that the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed, and in default of agreement, as assessed.  It is those costs that have been assessed by Registrar Riddiford and as a result of which he has ordered on 11 May 2012 that the applicants pay the sum of $12,250 by way of costs, being the costs of the unsuccessful appeal.

6. There is a process by which an assessment of costs may be reviewed, and the time for filing an application for review is 14 days after the applicant receives the registrar’s reasons given after a request for those reasons made pursuant to subrule 19.32(4) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). In this case, no request has been made for the reasons within the prescribed time period, nor is there an affidavit setting out the required evidence or with respect to the review of the assessment.

7. Rule 19.54 requires a party to include in the affidavit filed with the application the number of each item in the itemised costs account to which the party objects to the registrar’s decisions, the reasons for objecting to the decision and the decision sought from the court for each objection.  It is clear from what I have been told by the applicant that it is not the assessment of the costs to which she has an objection, it is the fact of the costs order itself having been made to which she objects.  That is an order of Strickland J.  It is not a matter with which I can deal with today.  It is not a matter that comes within the process of the review of the assessment made by Registrar Riddiford.  Registrar Riddiford’s order relates solely to the amount of the costs order required to be paid pursuant to the order made by Strickland J.

8. The other matters raised by the applicant relate both to the trial of the matter and the appeal insofar as there is an objection to the evidence of the independent children’s lawyer being untested, and also evidence or information given to the Court with respect to the applicant’s financial circumstances which, it is submitted, was misleading.  Again, these are matters that would have been issues for, firstly, the trial judge, and ultimately Strickland J on appeal, and not a matter to be dealt with on a review of an assessment of an order made fixing the costs that are to be payable.  The application is, in all the circumstances, misconceived and in those circumstances I propose to dismiss both the application in a case and the application for a review.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 14 August 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  4 September 2012