Kapoor & Kapoor (No 3)

Case [2025] FedCFamC2F 579


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Kapoor & Kapoor (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 579

File number(s): SYC 7947 of 2022
Judgment of: JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment: 6 May 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Application for recusal dismissed – refusal of stay beyond 2 pm. 
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 1
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 & 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 matter be stood down to 2:00 pm, on 6 May 2025, to permit the applicant’s representative to make an application for stay from an appellate judge, and the court refuses to grant a stay of proceedings beyond 2:00 pm today.

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

  1. The court’s orders are not one to be presumed incorrect and the court is of the view that these are proceedings in respect of which it is in the best interest of the child and in accordance with the principles under s 95 and s 69ZN of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that they should proceed. It is for these reasons that this court declines to grant a stay beyond 2:00 pm today, which is sufficient time to permit an oral application to be made, for a stay, if the applicant and ICL so wishes. Otherwise, the matter should proceed.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.

Associate:       

Dated:       6 May 2025

Details
AGLC
Kapoor & Kapoor (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 579
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2F 579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard an application from Ms Kapoor against Mr Kapoor, concerning the refusal of a stay beyond 2 pm. The matter was brought before Judge Street who was asked to consider the application for recusal and the request for a stay of proceedings. The applicant sought recusal based on perceived bias, and additionally requested a stay to appeal to a higher court. The respondent opposed both the recusal and the stay.

Judge Street had to determine whether there were grounds for the recusal of the judge and whether a stay of the proceedings was warranted. The judge considered the evidence and submissions provided by both parties, assessing the legitimacy of the recusal application and the merits of granting a stay. In making the decision, the judge examined the legal principles governing recusal and the criteria for granting a stay of proceedings in family law matters.

The court dismissed the application for recusal and refused to grant a stay beyond 2 pm. The reasoning provided by the judge highlighted that the application for recusal lacked sufficient grounds and that the request for a stay was not supported by compelling circumstances. The court’s decision was made in accordance with the legal standards and the evidence presented. The matter was stood down to allow for any further applications to be made, but no further stay was granted.

The court ordered that the matter be stood down to 2:00 pm on 6 May 2025 to allow the applicant’s representative to make an application for a stay from an appellate judge. The court explicitly refused to grant a stay of proceedings beyond 2:00 pm on that day. This order was made under the authority of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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 matter be stood down to 2:00 pm, on 6 May 2025, to permit the applicant’s representative to make an application for stay from an appellate judge, and the court refuses to grant a stay of proceedings beyond 2:00 pm today.

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.