Wilder and Child Support Registrar (No. 3)

[2009] FamCAFC 169

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILDER & CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR (NO. 3) [2009] FamCAFC 169

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL - Stay Application – protracted litigation – short indulgence granted

APPLICANT FATHER: MR WILDER

RESPONDENT: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1997 of 2008

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 86 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 7 September 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: O'Ryan J

HEARING DATE: 7 September 2009

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 24 June 2009

LOWER COURT MNC: [2009] FamCA 742

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Mr Wilder in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Fusitu’a, solicitor

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Australian Government Solicitor

Orders

1. The execution of the orders made on 24 March 2009 be stayed until 4:00 pm on Monday 14 September 2009.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wilder & Child Support Registrar (No. 3) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

THE APPEALLATE DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA 86 of 2009
File Number: SYC 1997 of 2008

MR WILDER

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR 

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Father has made an oral application seeking, in effect, a stay of the orders I made today dismissing his application filed on 10 August 2009 in which he sought leave to file out of time an application for leave to appeal and also an order I made discharging orders made by Rose J on 27 August 2009.  The Father is simply seeking an opportunity to consider his position before steps are taken by the Child Support Agency to enforce its rights. 

2. I had a very brief discussion with the Father from which it may be apparent that he has as yet not had the opportunity to read my reasons and thus is making this application on the basis that he is, in effect, seeking an opportunity to consider what I have said and also consider whether or not he would then make an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Given his circumstances and, in particular, that he currently does not have the benefit of legal representation, I am prepared to grant him a very short indulgence.

3. The history of this litigation is such that it has been protracted and, in my opinion, it should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.  Thus, I would not be prepared to grant a stay for any extended period in the absence of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court having been filed and, as well, there being evidence or some material which would enable a court to deal with in a more considered way whether or not the orders that I have made should be stayed pending the hearing of any special leave application.

4. I am going to make an order for a stay which will be until 4 pm on 14 September 2009.  In the event that the Father has not filed an application for special leave and made a further application for a stay, then the order that I propose to make will expire and in the absence of a further stay, the Child Support Registrar will be entitled to continue with the prosecution of the enforcement proceedings.  I do not believe that there is any significant hardship or prejudice caused to the Child Support Registrar by this short indulgence.

5. The order I therefore make is that the execution of the orders made on 24 March 2009 be stayed until 4:00 pm on Monday, 14 September 2009.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Appellate Division of the Family Court of Justice O’Ryan.

Associate: 

Date:  15 September 2009