Meadows & Meadows (No 2)

[2020] FamCAFC 36

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEADOWS & MEADOWS (NO. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 36

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application in an appeal – Review of Appeal Registrar’s decision – Where the Appeal Registrar rejected the applicant's draft Notice of Appeal – Where the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficiently comprehensible to enable identification of issues to be raised on appeal – Where Application allowed and Notice of Appeal to be filed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

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

APPELLANT: Ms Meadows

RESPONDENT: Mr Meadows

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2013

APPEAL NUMBER: EAA 15 of 2020

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: [2020] FamCA 12

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: Litigant in person

THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

Orders

1. The Application in an Appeal EAA 15 of 2020 for a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision be allowed.

2. The Notice of Appeal EAA 15 of 2020 against the orders made 21 January 2020 by a judge of the Family Court of Australia be accepted for filing.

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 (No. 2) 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 15 of 2020
File Number: PAC 3509 of 2013

Ms Meadows

Appellant

and

Mr Meadows

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 10 January 2020 a judge of the Family Court of Australia heard and dismissed an application filed by Ms Meadows (“the appellant”) to review a Registrar’s decision in proceedings between her and Mr Meadows (“the respondent”). 

2. On 24 January 2020 the appellant attempted to file an appeal against the judge’s decision but the Notice of Appeal was rejected by the Appeal Registrar on the basis that the grounds did not make grammatical sense and were thus incomprehensible.  It was also noted by the Appeal Registrar that the grounds did not identify appealable error by the primary judge and the orders sought were not orders capable of being made by a Full Court.

3. On 3 February 2020 the appellant filed an application seeking a review of the Appeal Registrar’s decision.

4. 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]).

5. While the appellant filed no affidavit in support of her application, in her oral submissions she argued that she could not identify the grammatical errors to which the Appeal Registrar’s rejection referred.  It must be said, and in large part the appellant agreed, that the grounds are particularly wordy and dense.  However, the appellant said that she was not able to redraw them any differently arguing that when, in an earlier different appeal, she had tried to make the grounds easier to understand, it resulted in greater confusion and more grounds of appeal.  Having seen the grounds of appeal to which she refers, there is force in that submission.

6. However, notwithstanding that, the particular challenges to the primary judge’s order can be sufficiently distilled from the grounds as presently drafted and, in my view should be accepted for filing.

7. But for the order sought on the appeal that, in the event that the appeal succeeded the primary judge’s order be set aside, the other orders sought by the appellant are indeed not able to be made by the Full Court, a position she appeared to accept and there is little need then to consider those orders further.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) 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