Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick [2006] HCATrans 110 (9 March 2006)

--

Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick [2006] HCATrans 110 (9 March 2006)

Last Updated: 30 March 2006

[2006] HCATrans 110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S347 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

RAYMOND ARTHUR FITZPATRICK

Applicant

and

MARGARET MARY FITZPATRICK

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 9 MARCH 2006, AT 9.07 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders made by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia on 16 December 2004. By those orders, Holden, Warnick and Boland JJ refused leave for the applicant to appeal against interlocutory orders made by Faulks J on 22 March 2004, where his Honour ordered that the parties attend a conciliation conference and made directions in relation to the filing of a financial statement and a form setting out the orders sought by the applicant in the proceedings.

Section 94AA(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that in order to obtain leave against interlocutory orders the applicant has to satisfy the Full Court that there was an error of principle by the trial judge and/or that the orders made caused substantial injustice to the applicant. The Full Court was satisfied that no such error or injustice occurred. The Full Court also held that the case did not raise any issue of general importance and the appeal was dismissed. We note that two notices of appeal were filed by the applicant and the Full Court dealt with both notices in the one judgment (see related proceedings S346 of 2005).

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The application for special leave dated 12 July 2005 is made out of time. The basis for the extension of time required is that whilst the Full Court of the Family Court delivered its judgment on 16 December 2004, it did not give reasons until 17 June 2005.

The applicant’s written submissions in support of the application for special leave assert that the Full Court failed to conduct a proper hearing, that it erred in law, fact and matters of public interest, that it displayed bias and prejudgment, that it failed to give proper weight to relevant evidence and that it took into account inappropriate matters. The applicant has raised no questions of law in the application or written submissions which would warrant a grant of special leave. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached in the courts below.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.10 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED