RK & SK (aka Kaleb & Kaleb)

Case

[2008] FamCAFC 11

5 February 2008


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RK & SK (AKA KALEB & KALEB) [2008] FamCAFC 11
FAMILY LAW - APPEAL – Appeal against decision of Guest J on application by husband for leave to institute property proceedings pursuant to s118 of the Family Law Act - Appeal repetitive and same form as multiple earlier applications - Leave refused and appeal dismissed.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPELLANT: RK
RESPONDENT: SK
FILE NUMBER: MLF 10919 of 1998
APPEAL NUMBER: SA 80 of 2007
DATE DELIVERED: 5 February 2008
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Heard ex parte by way of written submissions pursuant to order of Kay J, made 10 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Coleman, Warnick and Young JJ
SUBMISSIONS DATE: 20 September 2007
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 29 August 2007
LOWER COURT MNC: [2007] FamCA 1047

Orders

  1. That the application for permission to appeal filed on 3 September 2007 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Full Court delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as RK & SK (aka Kaleb and Kaleb)

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE


Appeal Number: SA 80  of 2007
File Number: MLF 10919  of 1998

RK

Appellant

And

SK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 August 2007 Guest J refused leave to [RK] to institute proceedings designed to revisit property settlement between himself and [SK], effected by orders made by Brown J on 20 December 1999.

  2. The husband stands restrained from initiating proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) without leave, by order made 8 April 2000 (as varied 15 March 2001).

  3. The application dismissed by Guest J was the latest in a long line of such applications.  As Guest J recorded in his reasons for the dismissal, in submissions to the Full Court on 26 July 2007 the husband had said:

    …my cycle of appeals will be continued, and by this way I shall keep my case current in the Full Court and the High Court, in the hope that God willing one day my case will be put before responsible, qualified and experienced appellate judges who could understand that the wife is entitled only to one asset settlement, then such judges will provide me justice.

  4. We regard this application for permission to appeal as an abuse of process, but do not intend to dismiss it on that basis.  However, that is the explanation for the brevity of these reasons.

  5. We have read the husband’s material and the reasons of Guest J.  We see no error in those reasons and intend to dismiss the husband’s application.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court.

Associate: 

Date:  5 February 2008

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1