Khademollah v Khademollah M43/2001 [2002] HCATrans 30 (15 February 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne Nos M30 and M43 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

ROUHOLLAH KHADEMOLLAH

Applicant

and

SORAYA KHADEMOLLAH

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2002, AT 12.11 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R. KHADEMOLLAH appeared in person.

MS A.L. O'CONNELL: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)

MOJDEH MAHDAVI, sworn as interpreter:

GLEESON CJ: We understand, Ms Mahdavi, from your client that he has already provided us with some written submissions in support of his application, and we have read those submissions. He said that he would be willing to answer any questions that we wish to ask him or clarify any matters arising out of his applications and his written submissions. Is there anything that he wishes to add to the written submissions that we have already received?

MR KHADEMOLLAH: In these proceedings I have several difficulties with his part of the judgment. First of all, it is written, application book, page 165:

There needs to be a certain degree of flexibility when dealing with a litigant in person, especially one who is not necessarily familiar with the legal system.

This is one problem that I have here. Another problem that I have is about the language. Application book 84:

Mr Khademollah represents himself. English is not his first language, although he is certainly a competent linguist in that tongue.

Another difficulty that I have is that before filing any application in this honourable Court and in the primary court, in the Family Court, I applied for assistance from Victoria Legal Aid. At that time Victoria Legal Aid did not assist the wife or anybody. I applied for assistance. At that time the wife could afford and had private solicitors. The solicitor was called Mrs Susan Woodford. Her office is in Doncaster. But I do not know what happened that day. Did not provide assistance for me, and they provided for the wife, which is very discrimination action. There is some evidence about this matter that I have provided before, pages 67 to 70. That is three times I applied, and they refused.

So it is part of my problem. To overcome this problem, I thought that this is much better I write whatever I want to say. It was the reason that I filed my supplementary summary of argument in advance. I filed it on 29 January with 95 pages of documentary evidence. The same date, I served the Victoria Legal Aid for the wife, but did not respond to that. If they respond to that, I would have time with the help of dictionary, by help of myself, to prepare the answer. But they did not. In my opinion, if they want to misuse my difficulties in this Court and present something that I need time to prepare their answer and it is a limitation time. In this Court, there is a limit of time. So I have no time, and I cannot. It was their fault that they did not provide any response to my supplementary summary of argument. To my opinion, absolutely it is not fair if they want to misuse this, but it depends on your Honours' decision. Whatever your Honours' decision is, I will obey it with respect. Thank you.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. Is there anything further you wish to add to your written submissions?

MR KHADEMOLLAH: It depends on your decision. If they are going to say something and I have to answer, so I must answer.

GLEESON CJ: We have before us two applications for special leave to appeal against decisions of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. Both applications have been supported by extensive written submissions from the applicant and by other material provided by him to the Court. We have read that material and considered his submissions.

The Court is of the view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of either decision of the Full Court of the Family Court, and each application for special leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

We will adjourn for a short time to reconstitute.

AT 12.20 PM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED