MEADOWS & MEADOWS

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS

[2020] FamCAFC 35

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF APPEAL REGISTRAR'S DECISION – Where the Appeal Registrar rejected the applicant's Summary of Argument for non-compliance with the Practice Directions – Where the applicant was ordered to comply with the Practice Direction and file a Summary of Argument limited to fifteen pages – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.40
Family Court of Australia, Practice Directions No. 1 of 2017 – Conduct of Appeals, 22 December 2016

Bele & Vaughan (No.2) [2012] FamCAFC 125
Wellington & Child Support Registrar [2012] FamCAFC 34

APPELLANT:

Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT:

Mr Meadows

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

3509

2013

APPEAL NUMBER:

EAA

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

18 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Ainslie-Wallace J

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2020

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE:

30 July 2019

LOWER COURT MNC:

[2019] FamCA 491

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT:

Litigant in person

THE RESPONDENT:

Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Phillip Wilkins

Orders

The Application in an Appeal EAA 77 of 2019 for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision be dismissed.
The appellant to file and serve a Summary of Argument not exceeding
15 pages by 4 pm on 18 February 2020.
Order 6 of the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar on 30 October 2019 be amended so that the date 8 January 2020 is substituted for 18 February 2020.

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 Meadows & Meadows 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).

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EAA 77 of 2019
File Number: PAC 3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Appellant

and

Mr Meadows

Respondent

and

The Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By an Application in an Appeal filed 14 January 2020 Ms Meadows (“the mother”) seeks to review a decision of an Appeal Registrar made on 10 January 2020 in relation to the mother’s Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, as it failed to comply with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2017 - Conduct of Appeal (“Practice Direction”). That direction states that a Summary of Argument must not exceed 15 pages in length.
The appeal is in relation to final parenting and property orders made by a judge of the Family Court of Australia on 30 July 2019 between the mother and Mr Meadows (“the father”).
On 30 October 2019 an Appeal Registrar made the usual procedural orders in readiness for the hearing of the appeal which included the filing of the mother’s Summary of Argument and List of Authorities by 8 January 2020.

The Application

The mother sought to review the Appeal Registrar’s decision.
Rule 22.40 of Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) provides for the review of a Regional Appeal Registrar’s order by a judge of the Appeal Division.
Reviews of orders made by Appeal Registrars by single judges of this Court are conducted on the basis of a hearing de novo whereby “…it is unnecessary for the applicant to demonstrate any error on the part of the Registrar” (Bele & Vaughan (No.2) [2012] FamCAFC 125 at [44]) and where “[n]o leave or consideration of the merits of the application prior to its hearing is required” (Wellington & Child Support Registrar [2012] FamCAFC 34 at [25]).
In conducting the review the Court takes into account the material before the Registrar, together with any further evidence filed by the parties.

Evidence in support of the Application

In support of her application the mother filed an affidavit in which she asserted that having read the relevant Practice Direction, it appeared to her that it could be interpreted as permitting each ground of appeal to be supported by a summary of argument not exceeding fifteen pages rather than the whole summary of argument not exceeding that page limit.
The mother said that although she contacted the Court on 2 January 2020 seeking advice about the Summary of Argument, she did not receive a response until 7 January 2020 when she was advised that her Summary of Argument could not exceed 15 pages. The mother says that when she received this response she was in the process of writing the submissions which were due on 8 January 2020. She said she did not have time to file an application to seek leave to rely on a longer document and, in any event, she believed she was correct that she could file 15 pages per ground. The mother’s understanding of the Practice Direction is incorrect. The Summary of Argument must not exceed 15 pages.
Both in her affidavit and in oral argument on the Application, the mother contended that her appeal raises a number of complex arguments which she believed could not be met, even in a summary form within the specified page limit.
The document to be filed is a summary of the arguments to be made. Having considered the grounds of appeal raised by the mother in challenge of the primary judge’s orders, I am of the view that there is no reason why the mother’s arguments cannot be adequately summarised within 15 pages.
Having indicated that position to the mother, she said that she could file an amended Summary of Argument which complies with the Practice Direction by 4pm on 18 February 2020 and that order was made.
The father had already filed his Summary of Argument and the Independent Children's Lawyer was able to file his summary within the ambit of the directions already made.
For these reasons the Application for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision filed on 14 January 2020 was dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court delivered on 18 February 2020.

Associate:

Date: 18 February 2020

Meadows and Meadows was an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was the refusal by the Appeal Registrar to allow the appellant to file a Notice of Contention. The refusal was based on the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar. The appellant sought a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the appellant's Notice of Contention, and whether the refusal was justified. The court had to consider the relevant rules and procedures governing appeals in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the Appeal Registrar had no authority to refuse the Notice of Contention and that the refusal was unjust. The respondents argued that the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the Notice of Contention and that the refusal was justified.

The court held that the Appeal Registrar had the authority to refuse the appellant's Notice of Contention as it was in accordance with the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar. The court also held that the refusal was justified as the appellant had failed to comply with the procedural orders. The court noted that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Contention. The court further held that the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural orders had caused significant delay and inconvenience to the respondents. The court also held that the appellant's application for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision was not well-founded. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the appellant file and serve a Summary of Argument not exceeding 15 pages by 4 pm on 18 February 2020. The court also amended Order 6 of the procedural orders made by the Appeal Registrar so that the date 8 January 2020 was substituted for 18 February 2020. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established