PENCIOUS & SEARLE

[2016] FamCAFC 27

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENCIOUS & SEARLE [2016] FamCAFC 27

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – DISQUALIFY – Where the husband sought an order disqualifying the Honourable Justice Strickland from further hearing these matters – Where the husband has not satisfied the test as it applies to apprehended bias – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the husband seeks an extension of time to appeal orders dismissing the joinder of the wife’s parents to the property settlement proceedings, and ordering that the husband pay the wife’s costs – Where there is no adequate explanation by the husband for the delay after May 2013 in bringing the application – Where the proposed appeal against the orders dismissing the joinder application is futile – Where there is no merit in either of the proposed appeals – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where the husband seeks an extension of time to appeal against orders for costs made consequent upon the dismissal of his application to restrain the wife’s solicitor and his legal firm from acting for her – Where the husband asserts that information has come to light since the proceedings concluded which show that his application should not have been dismissed and he should not have had a costs order made against him – Where the husband has unsuccessfully raised these matters previously – Where the proceedings have concluded – Where it is not open to the husband to now pursue those claims via a challenge to the costs orders – Where there is no merit in the proposed appeal – Where no error appealable or otherwise by the trial judge is raised in the draft Notice of Appeal – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION IN AN APPEAL – REVIEW DECISION OF APPEAL REGISTRAR – Where the Appeal Registrar refused to accept for filing an application by the husband insofar as it sought an extension of time to appeal orders dismissing the husband’s application that the wife’s solicitor and his legal firm be restrained from acting for her – Where an application by the husband to reinstate a Notice of Appeal against those orders had been previously dismissed – Where the husband asserted that the application was a different application because it sought an extension of time and not reinstatement – Where the nature of the applications are the same and the facts relied on do not raise anything new – Where there is no merit in the proposed appeal – Where the proposed appeal is futile – Where it would be an abuse of process to allow the application to be filed – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – COSTS – Where the wife seeks that the husband pay her costs of the application of the husband to reinstate the abandoned Notice of Appeal – Where the husband opposes the…