Tranh and Long

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRANH & LONG [2008] FamCA 922

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay– Application by father for stay of parenting orders pending appeal – Unlikely that the husband's appeal will succeed or that decision would be changed – Refusal of stay would not render nugatory the fruits of a successful appeal – Stay not granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Tranh

RESPONDENT: Ms Long

FILE NUMBER: PAF 2203 of 1994

DATE DELIVERED: 21 October 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Coleman J

HEARING DATE: 21 October 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Applicant in Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

1. That the application for a stay of the orders made on 13 August 2008 be refused.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Tranh & Long is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAF 2203 of 1994

MR TRANH

Applicant

And

MS LONG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to stay orders made on the 13th of August 2008. On that occasion, for reasons then delivered, the Court declined to make any order providing for time to be spent by a child who is now fifteen years of age with his father. To that effect, orders which had been in place for some years, but it was common ground had not been implemented or effected for some years, were discharged.

2. The decision of 13 August 2008 also included orders permitting the mother, as she had done in the past, to remove the child from the jurisdiction for periods of time and ordered that the father be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 118 of the Act. As is his right the father appealed against the Court's decision.

3. The father’s Notice of Appeal does not disclose an identifiable ground of appeal but there seems to be some complaint that because the father, who changed the nature of the interpretation he said he required from Cantonese to Mandarin or Mandarin to Cantonese, but clearly as the transcript of the trial would confirm was more than able to acquit himself at least linguistically in English, was denied an interpreter on the day judgment was delivered was denied natural justice. As subsequently emerged and has been confirmed again this morning, quite apart from the father's absence of difficulty understanding what was happening in the English language during the trial, he for some time has been attending a course at TAFE, which is conducted in English. He attends classes conducted in English and passes his exams in English. He wrote his Notice of Appeal in English. He wrote his application for stay in English. He wrote his affidavit in support. With respect to the father, the complaint about being denied an interpreter when judgment was delivered, by which time the case for all practical purposes was…