Mirren and Mirren (No 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MIRREN & MIRREN (NO. 2) [2019] FamCA 742

FAMILY LAW – STAY APPLICATION – grounds of appeal generic and unspecific – no arguable prospects of success on the appeal – appellant not prosecuting her appeal with any particular vigour – stay refused – costs ordered against appellant.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 37A, 79A, 117(2A)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.11(3)

Aldridge & Keaton (2009) 42 Fam LR 369

APPLICANT: Ms Mirren

RESPONDENT: Mr Mirren

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9896 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 11 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J

HEARING DATE: 11 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms E Swart

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Kelly & McHale Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dr R Ingleby

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Berger Kordos Lawyers

Orders

1. The applicant’s application for a stay of the orders made 14 August 2019 is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this stay application.

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 Mirren & Mirren 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 9896 of 2013

Ms Mirren

Applicant

And

Mr Mirren

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 August 2019 I handed down reasons for decision in this proceeding in which Mr Mirren applied to review a registrar’s order.  I published detailed reasons within two days of the close of submissions.  They have been the subject of an appeal brought by the wife. 

2. She has relied on four grounds of appeal.  It is necessary to go to them because Dr Ingleby has contended that they are generic in nature and amount to little more than a grievance that the wife, essentially, does not like the outcome of the decision against which she appeals. 

3. The grounds are as follows –

   (1)the learned trial judge erred in conflating the considerations relevant to s 79A with the considerations relevant to s 37A, (inferentially, of the Family Law Act);

   (2)the learned trial judge erred in his finding that there were material errors in the application for consent orders which lead to a miscarriage of justice;

   (3)the learned trial judge erred in finding that the registrar could not have been satisfied that it was just and equitable to make the orders; and

   (4)the learned trial judge erred in finding that an injustice to the husband would result if the orders were permitted to stand and that strict compliance with…