Kapoor & Kapoor (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC2F 578

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kapoor & Kapoor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 578

File number(s): SYC 7947 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE STREET

Date of judgment: 6 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property - oral recusal application - application dismissed

Legislation: Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] 205 CLR 337

Cases cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 6 May 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K Beck

Solicitor for the Applicant: Fox & Staniland Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms M McMahon

Solicitor for the Respondent: Marsdens Law Group

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr T Iuliano

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Gordon and Barry Lawyers Pty Ltd
ORDERS

SYC 7947 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS KAPOOR

Applicant

AND:
MR KAPOOR

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The oral application for recusal 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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET

These are parenting and property proceedings that were commenced originally on 9 November 2022 in relation to a child, X, born in 2020.
The matter was listed for a final hearing that commenced yesterday as a result of orders that had been made by the Court fixing the matter for trial. Those orders that were made on 10 May 2024 included orders that identified in order 27 that leave is granted to the ICL to file and serve a case outline on or before 30 April 2025.
The matter is one in which it was listed to commenced at 10:00am yesterday and this Court has another matter being a child maintenance support matter that it heard before the commencement of this matter at 2:00 pm. In terms of the hearing, the Court did identify to the parties that it would hear that matter beforehand at 10:00am and explained that it expected the parties to try and have meaningful discussions in respect of the parenting issues concerning the child and was informed that the child is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kapoor & Kapoor (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Kapoor & Kapoor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 578
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 578
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involved a dispute between Ms Kapoor and Mr Kapoor regarding parenting arrangements and property division. Ms Kapoor applied for the recusal of the judge on the basis of perceived bias. The court was required to determine whether the grounds for recusal were valid and whether the judge should be disqualified from hearing the case. The independent children's lawyer also participated in the proceedings to ensure the best interests of the children were considered.

The primary legal issue was whether the judge's conduct warranted a finding of bias or perceived bias, thus necessitating recusal. Ms Kapoor argued that comments made by the judge during previous proceedings demonstrated a partiality that could affect the fairness of the current matter. The court meticulously reviewed the judge's comments and interactions to assess whether they were sufficient to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court concluded that the judge's remarks, while critical, were within the scope of judicial conduct and did not indicate a bias that would compromise the fairness of the proceedings.

The court found that the judge's comments were part of the normal judicial process and did not reflect any bias or partiality. The court held that the comments did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the application for recusal was dismissed. The judge's decision was supported by the absence of any evidence that the judge's conduct would prevent a fair hearing of the matter. The court's ruling ensured that the proceedings could continue without further delay or disruption.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 7947 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS KAPOOR

Applicant

AND:

MR KAPOOR

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

6 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The oral application for recusal 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.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYC 7947 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment:	6 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting and property - oral recusal application - application dismissed
Legislation:	Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] 205 CLR 337
Cases cited:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	17
Date of hearing:	6 May 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms K Beck
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Fox & Staniland Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms M McMahon
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Marsdens Law Group
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr T Iuliano
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Gordon and Barry Lawyers Pty Ltd

SYC 7947 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS KAPOOR Applicant
AND:	MR KAPOOR Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MAY 2025