RAZNATOVICH & RAZNATOVICH

[2014] FamCAFC 54

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAZNATOVICH & RAZNATOVICH [2014] FamCAFC 54

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL – Where the appeal was deemed abandoned after the appellant failed to file a draft appeal index within the time required by r 22.13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – application opposed by the mother – Where draft notice of appeal not prepared for application for reinstatement - Where the appellant failed to explain the delay –- Where the proposed grounds of appeal are unlikely to attract appellate intervention – Where reinstatement of the appeal would be unjust to the respondent – HELD – Application to reinstate dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): ss 94(2D)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth): rr 22.13, 22.44

Gallo v Dawson

(1990) 93 ALR 479
[2009] FamCAFC 88

Rand & Rand

APPELLANT:	Mr Raznatovich
RESPONDENT:	Ms Raznatovich

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: PAC 584 of 2012

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 9 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED:

4 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Ryan J

HEARING DATE: 2 April 2014

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Federal Circuit Court

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 18 December 2013

LOWER COURT MNC: [2013] FCCA 2189

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPELLANT: In Person with interpreter

FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. The application in an appeal filed by Mr Raznatovich on 6 March 2014 to reinstate an appeal be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Raznatovich & Raznatovich has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to
s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 9 of 2014
File Number: PAC 584 of 2012

Mr Raznatovich

Applicant

And

Ms Raznatovich

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application by Mr Raznatovich (“the father”) filed on 6 March 2014 wherein he seeks an order that his Notice of Appeal filed on 10 January 2014 be reinstated.  The appeal, which is against orders made by Judge Donald on

   
   

   18 December 2013, was deemed abandoned because the father had failed to file a draft appeal index within the time prescribed in r 22.13 of the Family law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”).

2. The application is opposed by Ms Raznatovich (“the mother”).

Background facts

1. So as to give this application context, it is necessary to record a few seemingly uncontroversial facts.

2. The parties commenced cohabitation in 1998 and were married later that year. There are two children of the marriage, A and I.  The parties separated in August 2011.

3. Between 1988 and 1996 the father was employed to work on building sites while from 1998 the wife worked as a cleaner.

4. In 1996 the father suffered an injury at work and was placed on workers compensation.  In 1999 he received an award of approximately $260,821 in lieu of further weekly benefits.

5. In 2000, the parties obtained employment at a food manufacturer.  They were made…