PIEPER & JESBERG

[2018] FamCAFC 8

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PIEPER & JESBERG [2018] FamCAFC 8

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION – EXPEDITION – Where the appellant seeks to expedite the hearing of the appeal – Where there is no basis for expedition set out in his affidavit filed in support – Where even if the appeal was expedited it could not be heard earlier than normal – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where part-way through the directions hearing to prepare the appeal for hearing the appellant launched into a commentary about his dissatisfaction with the court, the judiciary and the legal system – Where the appellant confirmed he did not wish to proceed with his appeal – Appeal dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPELLANT: Mr Pieper

RESPONDENT: Ms Jesberg

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8376 of 2012

APPEAL NUMBER: SOA 85 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 12 January 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 12 January 2018

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 18 October 2017

LOWER COURT MNC: [2017] FCCA 2487

REPRESENTATION

THE APPELLANT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms B. Yagiz

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mulbridge Lawyers

Orders

1. The application in an appeal filed on 11 December 2017 be dismissed.

2. The Notice of Appeal filed on 14 November 2017 be dismissed.

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 Pieper & Jesberg 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 FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

Appeal Number:  SOA 85 of 2017
File Number:  MLC 8376 of 2012

Mr Pieper

Appellant

And

Ms Jesberg

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a directions hearing in relation to the Notice of Appeal filed by Mr Pieper (“the father”) on 14 November 2017 appealing against orders made by Judge O’Sullivan on 18 October 2017.

2. Also before the court today is an application in an appeal filed by the father on 11 December 2017, seeking to expedite the hearing of the appeal, and I dealt with that application at the commencement of this hearing. Although counsel for Ms Jesberg (“the mother”) told me that the application is not opposed, as I have explained to the father and to the mother’s counsel, in my view, there is no basis set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application to expedite the hearing of the appeal. As I have also said, even if I was prepared to expedite the appeal, I would not be in a position to provide a date earlier than the date that I am able to give in the normal course of events.

3. Having dealt with the expedition application, I then moved to the directions hearing proper to prepare the appeal for hearing. The first matter that I raised with the appellant father was his draft appeal index in an attempt to determine and clarify what documents should be before the court for the purposes of the appeal.

4. In his draft appeal index the father set out four, what I will refer to, as medical reports. One of those reports is a radiologist’s report dated 23 November 2017. Pausing there, that is a report which is dated subsequent to the orders made by Judge O’Sullivan, and as I explained to the father, it therefore cannot be before this Court. 

5. However, because of the father’s behaviour, which I will refer to in a moment, I was not able to explain to the father that if he wanted to put that report before the court, he would need to file an application to lead further evidence. I was able to suggest to him though that that report did not appear to me to be relevant to the appeal.

6. The second set of documents in the draft appeal index are described as “medical reports for [Mr Pieper] to be obtained shortly”. They are obviously in the same category namely, they would be reports that are obtained after the orders made by the trial judge, and thus they could not be before the court, save and except if the appellant father filed an application seeking leave to adduce further evidence. Again, it is not readily apparent to me the relevance of the medical reports, given they are not only undefined, but they have not yet been obtained.

7. That leaves three reports, being psychological reports for the father, respectively dated in 2013, 2016 and 2015. I indicated to the father that I was prepared to leave those documents in the draft appeal index, but explained to him that if he could not satisfy the court that they were relevant, then there would be an order for costs made against him.

8. At that point, the father exploded and launched into an abusive commentary as to how he has been treated unfairly and would be treated as a criminal by this Court. He concluded by indicating that he wished to withdraw his appeal, alleging that I was “biased”, and that I would “screw [him] over, just like the rest of [us]”.

9. I will pause before I formally dismiss the father’s appeal to clarify that that is what he wants me to do.

10. I have confirmed with the father that he wishes me to dismiss his appeal, and I propose to do so.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court delivered on 12 January 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  24 January 2018