Rilak & Tsocas

[2017] FamCA 757

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RILAK & TSOCAS [2017] FamCA 757

FAMILY LAW – COURTS AND JUDGES – Disqualification – Where the applicant seeks that the judge be recused for reason of apprehended bias – Where there is no evidence or submission made as to the applicant’s assertion of apprehended bias – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STAY – Application for a stay of costs orders pending the determination of an appeal – Where the appeal does not have a strong basis – Where the granting of a stay would deprive the respondent of interest – Application dismissed.

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankrupcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Rilak & Tsocas (No. 2) [2017] FamCAFC 126
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Strahan & Strahan (Disqualification) (2009) FLC 93-414
Trahn & Long(No. 2) [2008] FamCAFC 194

APPLICANT: Ms Rilak

RESPONDENT: Mr Tsocas

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2062 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 26 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: IN CHAMBERS

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In Person

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the application that the Honourable Justice Rees be disqualified, be dismissed.

2. That the application for a stay of the order made on 11 May 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 Rilak & Tsocas 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).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2062 of 2010

Ms Rilak

Applicant

And

Mr Tsocas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Ms Rilak (“the applicant”) has filed an application seeking, firstly, a stay of an order for costs made on 11 May 2017, pending appeal. Secondly, she asks that I recuse myself from any further hearing in relation to her proceedings.

2. On 19 July 2016 I heard an application that Mr Tsocas (“the respondent”) be dealt with for contravention. The application was dismissed on 22 July 2016.

3. On 11 May 2017, the applicant was ordered to pay to the respondent $5,000 by way of costs.

4. I am required to consider the recusal application first.

5. In support of both applications, the applicant relies upon an affidavit sworn by her on 14 August 2017. In that affidavit she deposed as to the history of the litigation and concluded, “I also seek that Justices Rees, Ryan, Stevenson and Loughnan will recuse themselves to preside or manage any our (sic) family law matters in the future due to their previous…