Keskin and Keskin

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KESKIN & KESKIN [2019] FamCA 830

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – hearing of appeal on 27 November 2019 – litigant in person – cross-application for variation of orders – both applications refused.

Family Law Rules 2004, r 22.11(3)

APPLICANT: Ms Keskin

RESPONDENT: Mr Keskin

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9445 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 6 November 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J

HEARING DATE: 6 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT: In person

RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. The applicant’s enforcement application filed on 27 August 2019 is dismissed.

2. The respondent’s application filed 15 October 2019 for a stay of the orders made on 19 June 2019 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9445  of 2014

Ms Keskin

Applicant

And

Mr Keskin

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There are two applications before me today. The first is the application by Mr Keskin for a stay of the orders pronounced by me with reasons on 19 June 2019. The second is an application by Ms Keskin for enforcement of the same orders as well as a variation of certain aspects of those orders made by application in a case filed 27 August 2019. Under the rules that determine applications such as this, the filing of a notice of appeal does not stay the operation or enforcement of the order appealed from unless otherwise provided for. Rule 22.11(3) of the Family Law Rules requires an application for a stay to be made, heard and determined by the judge who made the orders under appeal – hence the application is made to me.

2. Today Mr Keskin advanced an unattractive contention that he said there was so much injustice in the orders that I made that his appeal was a near certainty.  It is fair to say that an applicant for a stay is not required to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or indeed special circumstances before the proceeding is stayed pending appeal.  That said, a stay is sometimes granted where the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless the stay were granted.

3. Mr Keskin has advanced five grounds of appeal in this case.  Interestingly, he was represented by lawyers until the very first day of the commencement of this proceeding.  He then conducted the trial before me himself and has since retained solicitors to prepare the notice of appeal.  He says he has been…