Sharaf & Nouri
Case
•
[2022] FedCFamC1F 898
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sharaf & Nouri [2022] FedCFamC1F 898
[2022] FedCFamC1F 898
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case are Ms. Sharaf and Mr. Nouri, with the matter being heard in Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute centres around Mr. Nouri's application for leave to extend the time prescribed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 to file an Application for Review of the exercise of power by a senior judicial registrar. Mr. Nouri filed his Application for Review on 17 October 2022, which was 10 days beyond the 21-day limit set by rule 14.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
The legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Nouri had a prima facie case for relief sought, whether a denial of an extension of time would cause him hardship, and the reasons for his delay in filing his Application for Review. Mr. Nouri's only evidence was the orders made by the senior judicial registrar on 16 September 2022, which did not provide any substantial basis for his claim for relief or demonstrate any hardship if the extension of time was not granted. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to explain the delay in filing the Application for Review.
In dismissing Mr. Nouri's application for leave to extend the time for filing his Application for Review, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to time limits and the principle that any provision for an extension to the limit is an exception to the general rule. The court also noted that the husband had the benefit of his current solicitors but chose not to pursue any application under rule 10.13 of the Rules. Given the lack of evidence presented to support Mr. Nouri's application for leave, the court was not satisfied that the husband had achieved an evidentiary foundation to ground an exercise of discretion for leave to extend the time for him to file his Application for Review.
The court ordered that the Application for Review filed by Mr. Nouri on 17 October 2022, which sought to review the exercise of delegated power by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 16 September 2022, be dismissed.
The legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Nouri had a prima facie case for relief sought, whether a denial of an extension of time would cause him hardship, and the reasons for his delay in filing his Application for Review. Mr. Nouri's only evidence was the orders made by the senior judicial registrar on 16 September 2022, which did not provide any substantial basis for his claim for relief or demonstrate any hardship if the extension of time was not granted. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to explain the delay in filing the Application for Review.
In dismissing Mr. Nouri's application for leave to extend the time for filing his Application for Review, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to time limits and the principle that any provision for an extension to the limit is an exception to the general rule. The court also noted that the husband had the benefit of his current solicitors but chose not to pursue any application under rule 10.13 of the Rules. Given the lack of evidence presented to support Mr. Nouri's application for leave, the court was not satisfied that the husband had achieved an evidentiary foundation to ground an exercise of discretion for leave to extend the time for him to file his Application for Review.
The court ordered that the Application for Review filed by Mr. Nouri on 17 October 2022, which sought to review the exercise of delegated power by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 16 September 2022, be dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sharaf & Nouri [2022] FedCFamC1F 898
Most Recent Citation
Crompton & Crompton [2025] FedCFamC2F 52
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Sharaf & Nouri (No 2)
[2022] FedCFamC1F 899
Ingram & Bouali (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2F 906
Gounelle & Crozier (No 3)
[2025] FedCFamC2F 282
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Gallo v Dawson
[1990] HCA 30
Gallo v Dawson
[1990] HCA 30
Gallo v Dawson
[1990] HCA 30