Redmond v Stolz & anor

[2015] HCASL 175

Redmond

v

Stolz & anor

[2015] HCASL 175
B29/2015; B31/2015

1. The first respondent, Ms Stolz, and the applicant, Mr Redmond, are the parents of a ten year old girl.  The applicant and the first respondent were parties to a proceeding in the Family Court of Australia (Forrest J) in which parenting orders and property adjustment orders were sought.  Prior to judgment, Principal Registrar Filipello made orders which, amongst other things, permitted the first respondent to take the daughter on an overseas holiday. 

2. The applicant sought review of the Principal Registrar's orders and filed two related applications.  On 19 May 2015, the Family Court of Australia (Forrest J) dismissed the applicant's applications and made orders permitting the first respondent to travel overseas with the daughter, including an order that the applicant be restrained from taking steps to communicate with the Australian Federal Police so as to cause them to put the daughter's name on the Family Law Watch List ("Order 9").  An appeal by the applicant to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (May, Murphy and Kent JJ) ("First Appeal") was dismissed. 

3. Prior to the hearing of the First Appeal, the first respondent applied for a stay of Order 9.  The Court (Forrest J) dismissed the application.  Following the Full Court's dismissal of the First Appeal, the applicant appealed against Forrest J's order dismissing the stay application.  During the hearing of that appeal (the "Second Appeal"), the applicant accepted that one of his purposes in filing the appeal was to have Order 9 stayed pending the determination of a special leave application to this Court.  The Full Court (May, Ryan and Kent JJ) dismissed the appeal, considering that there was no legitimate basis on which to grant the stay.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from orders made in both the First Appeal and the Second Appeal. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

5. As regards the application for special leave to appeal from orders made in the First Appeal, the applicant has not raised any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court.  As regards the application for special leave to appeal from orders made in the Second Appeal, the proceedings below involved questions of practice and procedure which were resolved by the Full Court through the application of well-settled principles.  The proposed appeals to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.  Both applications are dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders dismissing each application.

V.M. Bell
4 November 2015 S.J. Gageler