Zau and Uong (No 3)

[2015] FamCA 821

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZAU & UONG (NO. 3) [2015] FamCA 821

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of exercise of power by a Judicial Registrar – hearing de novo – where the mother seeks review of Registrar’s decision to not accept documents for filing – where the mother seeks to raise issues already dealt with in previous hearings – where the mother’s appeals  orders made in the previous hearings have either been dismissed or the judgment reserved  – final orders made dismissing the mother’s applications

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Zau

RESPONDENT: Ms Uong

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3931 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 1 October 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J

HEARING DATES: 27 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The mother’s applications in a case filed 11 and 15 May 2015 respectively be dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Zau & Uong (No 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3931 of 2012

Ms Zau

Applicant

And

Ms Uong

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The mother’s applications in a case filed 11 and 15 May 2015 respectively were listed for hearing before me in the Judicial Duty List on 27 May 2015. On the morning of the hearing the father sent an email to the court advising that he did not intend to appear or be represented at the hearing that day. On that date I reserved my judgments and otherwise adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed for judgment.

2. In her application in a case filed 11 May 2015, the mother sought to “Review the decision made by Registraar [sic] Sikiotis on 28 April 2015 ask This Honourable Court to shorten a time that is fixed under these Rules. Rule 1.14”.

3. The decision made by Registrar Sikiotis was her refusal to accept the mother’s proposed initiating application on the basis that the issues it raised had already been dealt with by the Court and were the subject of an appeal. The mother in that application sought both final and interim orders. The final orders sought by the mother were as follows:

   1.That the Child [W] born … 1998 reside with the Applicant Mother at [P Street] Family Home until the Child complted [sic] his education Pursuant to 60CC,68B of the Family Law Act 1975

   2.That the Applicant Mother be responsible for the day to day care, welfare and development of the said child until the child complete his education. Pursuant to 60CC,68B of the Family Law Act 1975.

   3.That Seeking a Child maintennance [sic] Orders that the father … responsible for the child maintence [sic] enable the child to complete his education. Pursuant to 66L (1) (a) of the Family Law Act 1975.

   4.That Seeking a Order FAMILY LAW ACT 1975-SET 90RD (2) Declare the following:

   a)   the period, or periods, of thr [sic] de facto relationship for      the purpose of  paragraph 90 SB(a);

   b)    whether there is a child of the de facto relationship;

   5.That seeking Orders as this Honourable Court considers appropriate pursuant to Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975

4. The mother also sought a raft of both interim parenting and financial orders.

5. In her second application in a case which was filed on 15 May 2015 the mother sought the following orders:

   1.Seeking a Order stay the Amended Order made on 4 February 2015 paragraph 5, The mother be and is hereby restrained from attending at [W’s] school unless invited by him in writing or SMS message.

   2.Seeking a Order applicant mother from 3pm till 5pm on 17 May 2015 back to home to take personal belongings and spend time with our son [W].

6. The mother’s applications are difficult to make sense of, however I am mindful of the fact that she does represent herself and that the Court must make the effort to glean what if any aspect of her application may have some merit.

7. By way of background on 23 April 2013 Cronin J made orders dismissing the mother’s application for a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that she and the father had lived in a de facto relationship. The mother filed a notice of appeal against Cronin J’s decision which was heard by the Full Court on 15 July 2015. Judgment has been reserved.

8. On 4 February 2015, I made parenting orders and delivered judgment. However, prior to doing so and on the same day, I also made orders dismissing two applications in a case filed by the mother, the first of which sought to review a decision of a Registrar and the second of which effectively sought to reopen proceedings and adduce further evidence. The mother filed a notice of appeal in respect of each of those orders, however on 23 July 2015 the Full Court dismissed the mother’s appeals on the basis that there was no utility to the appeals in circumstances where they were unlikely to be heard prior to the child turning 18 in January 2016 and where there was no reasonable prospect of success to those appeals.

9. I will turn first to the mother’s application in a case filed 11 May 2015. As identified by Registrar Sikiotis in her letter to the mother rejecting her application for filing, the orders the mother sought in that application are matters that had already been dealt with by the Court, were the subject of an appeal or, in the case of the appeal against the parenting orders, have, since the hearing before me, been dismissed. The application raised no new matters not otherwise dealt with at the hearings before either Cronin J with respect to financial matters or the hearing before me with respect to parenting issues.   

10. Turning to the second application in a case. The first order the mother sought was a stay of the order I made on 4 February 2015 with respect to the parenting issues. That application has been overtaken by the dismissal of the mother’s appeal against those orders.

11. The second order sought by the mother was an order that the mother be permitted to attend at what she referred to as the “home” to remove her personal belongings and whilst there to spend time with the child the subject of the parenting proceedings. In her affidavit filed 15 May 2015 in support of that application the mother deposed as follows:

    5.The Order made on 4 February 2015 make me very difficulty to see our son [W] even in his school, I feel my rights is deprived as a mother, I can not take any responsibility for our son even could not talk to my son

    6.I was forced left home on 7 December 2011 with a suit case, on 9 December 2011 I back to home [W] was clocked at home not let him come out, he was cried .last time I back to home was on 12 May 2012 on Mother’s day I would like see our son [W] and have a dinner with him, the respndent [sic] father not let us meet on Mother’s day and called police.now with the Order only place I can see our son was when he bck to home on holiday but I am so fear back to home because the respondent will call the police even all my personal belongs he controledby [sic] him.

    7.From 16 May 2015 till 18 May 2015 is GGS his school mid-term Exeat [sic] I would reunit [sic] with our son and discuss his VCE year study, give him some advice as I have.and also I would like take some of personal belongs I need from home. I would ask this Honourable Court make the order for me back to home from 3pm till 5pm 0n 17 May 2015.

    8.[E School] keeping sent me some one’s mail to me , I need go to school to tell them which I did by e-mailed them and telephoned them, also I would like joined school activity and see [W] when he at school, I ask this Honourable Court stay the Order paragraph 5, made on 4 February 2015.Exibihied [sic] hereto notice of Appeal SOA14 of 2015 From MLC3931 of 2012.

12. These are matters which were all raised by the mother at the hearings of both her applications for financial relief and parenting orders. As previously referred to, in both cases her applications were dismissed and have been the subject of appeal, one of which has been dismissed and the other in which judgment has been reserved.

13. In all of the circumstances the applications in a case filed by the mother raise no new issues and I propose to dismiss both applications.    

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Macmillan delivered on 1 October 2015.

Associate: 

Date: 1 October 2015