![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Australia Transcripts |
Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M91 of 1994
No M93 of 1994
In the matter of -
THE HONOURABLE NICHOLSON CJ OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA FOR AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHALF;
GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL
For Judgment
DAWSON J
(In Chambers)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT MELBOURNE ON THURSDAY, 15 DECEMBER 1994, AT 9.45 AM
(Continued from 9/12/94)
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
HIS HONOUR: The applicant, who appears in person, seeks orders nisi for writs of prohibition and mandamus (and perhaps certiorari) directed to the
Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia "for and also on behalf of all persons acting on his behalf". It is difficult to be entirely sure of the precise matters of which the applicant complains but the following would seem to be the proceedings which give rise to the present applications.
In 1988 the applicant was granted custody of his child, Gabrielle Mary Wilhelmina Schorel. The mother of the child was granted access. In the same year the child was made a ward of the Supreme Court of Victoria. In 1992 Strauss J made a number of orders in the Family Court, including an order that the applicant be restrained from instituting proceedings against the mother or under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) without the leave of a judge of the Family Court.
In August 1992, Fogarty J found the applicant guilty of contempt of court for breach of the access order. The applicant was fined $500.00 and ordered to pay the mother's costs. The applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court. On 10 September 1993 Strauss J stayed the execution of the judgment of Fogarty J pending the determination of the appeal to the Full Court. On 20 June 1994 the Full Court reserved its decision and has yet to deliver judgment.
On 27 June 1994, the applicant applied for leave to commence a proceeding to apply for orders relating to the issue of a passport for the child to enable her to travel overseas. The application was dismissed. On 24 October 1994, a party in unrelated proceedings applied to have the applicant granted leave to act as his McKenzie friend in those proceedings. The application was refused upon the basis that the applicant is a vexatious litigant in the Family Court. On 5 December 1994, Hase J ordered that the child be separately represented in the Family Court and that the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria arrange such representation.
No point is to be served by dealing separately with the various items of relief claimed by the applicant. Suffice it to say that he seeks to dispute a number of orders made in the Family Court and to canvass the issues raised in that court once again in this court. The issues do not raise any question of lack of jurisdiction or the failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the Family Court or provide any other basis which would warrant the grant of orders nisi for prerogative relief. Rather the applicant seeks to sidestep such avenues of appeal from orders made by the Family Court as are available to him by resort to prerogative relief. Thus the applicant has failed to demonstrate any ground for the orders which he seeks and, accordingly, the applications must be refused.
AT 9.50 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/1994/181.html