Paradoxos and Paradoxos And Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARADOXOS & PARADOXOS AND ANOR [2010] FamCA 653

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL FROM DEPUTY REGISTRAR – Application to inspect file

APPLICANT: Ms Z Paradoxos

FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms J Paradoxos

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr E Paradoxos

FILE NUMBER: SYC 6810 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 18 January 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cohen J

HEARING DATE: 18 January 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Paradoxos in person

Orders

1. That the applicant is granted leave to search the Court file in Paradoxos & Paradoxos No. SYF9093/1978.

2. That any requirement of the rules that the applicant serve Mr E Paradoxos with her Application in a Case filed 10 November 2009 is hereby dispensed with.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Paradoxo & Paradoxos and Anor is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYC 6810 of 2009

MS Z PARADOXOS

Applicant

and

MS J PARADOXOS

First Respondent

and

MR E PARADOXOS

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a very unusual application.  In my years as a judge I have not had one before.  It is a great pity that there are not more of them.  It is an appeal from a deputy registrar against her refusal to grant two applications by the applicant.  The first is to inspect the court file relating to the proceedings between her parents, including children’s proceedings in which she was one of the subjects. The second aspect of the application is an application that she not be required to serve her father with the principal application.

2. The deputy registrar, as seems to be very common, acted under what I regard as a misconception of the meaning of section 121 of the Family Law Act, which, generally speaking, is thought to prevent publication of court proceedings in this court. In fact, it does not do that. It prevents publication without leave of the court to the public but there is a specific exception, namely section 121(9), which says that the balance of the section does not apply to communications of persons concerned in proceedings in any court subject to the Act of any pleading, transcript of evidence or other document for use in connection with those proceedings. In any event, this section does not apply to publication by the Court itself.

3. The Rules of Court provide for an order to be made by the Court permitting inspection of the court file by persons with a proper interest in the information on the court record. The present applicant is a person concerned in the proceedings between her parents and has a proper interest in them (Rule 24.13(1)(c)(ii).) Therefore, there is no restriction on publication to her.  Although the applicant had a right to a rehearing and does not need to rely upon an error by the deputy registrar, it is worthwhile pointing out that error, because it seems to be commonly made.  Although…