Fierro & Fierro [2025] FedCFamC1A 154 (28 August 2025)

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fierro & Fierro has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 25 August 2025 is dismissed for the following reasons.

1. The parties are involved in child-related proceedings under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
2. The applicant is the half-sibling of the subject child.
3. The respondents are the estranged parents of the child and the applicant is the son of the first respondent.
4. On 11 June 2025, a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Division 1) made a suite of procedural orders to facilitate the procurement of litigious records from Argentina, which records the applicant believes will help him establish in the Australian proceedings the first respondent's unfitness as a parent.
5. Those procedural orders stimulated more controversy. First, the first respondent filed an amended application (on 21 July 2025) seeking an extension of time within which to appeal from the orders. Secondly, the applicant filed a response (on 28 July 2025) seeking dismissal of the extension application with costs. Thirdly, the applicant filed an application (also on 28 July 2025) seeking that the extension application be "struck out".
6. Both the first respondent and the applicant expressed in the documents they filed their desire for the dispute to be determined in their absence "on the papers", which request the appeal registrar accommodated.
7. On 6 August 2025, the appeal registrar dismissed all three pending applications. In the accompanying reasons, the appeal registrar explained the proposed appeal was futile because the procedural orders did not represent a "judgment" from which any appeal lies and, since the parties were self-represented, no question of costs arose.
8. Despite successfully resisting the first respondent's application to bring an appeal out of time, the applicant then filed an Application in an Appeal on 25 August 2025 seeking a review of the appeal registrar's decision.
9. The review application is determined in the parties' absence "on the papers" as the applicant wanted.

1. It is evident from the applicant's application and supporting affidavit (also filed on 25 August 2025) that he is not seeking any review of the decision made by the appeal registrar, as embodied in the dismissal orders made on 6 August 2025.
2. Rather, the applicant is aggrieved by the content of the reasons delivered by the appeal registrar to explain the decision.
3. The applicant seeks these orders in his application:
   1. Review of the Registrar's decision of 6 August 2025, insofar as is extends to published reasons for judgment in accordance with r13.40.
   2. Amend, redact, or remove certain comments or findings in the Registrar's reasons of 7 August 2025; or

3. Suppress or limit access to those comments; or

1. Declaration that those comments are obiter dictum and should not carry precedential or evidentiary weight nor relied upon in any future proceeding.

1. In his accompanying affidavit, the applicant deposes this:
   1. On 7 August 2025, I wrote to the Registrar seeking informal review and removal of certain findings and comments made without foundation, hearing or submissions (annexed and marked A),
   2. In the written reasons, the Registrar made several comments as set out in my letter of 7 August 2025, which I respectfully submit:

(a) Were not necessary for the determination of the application;

(b) Were based on untested evidence

(c) Reflect adverse findings as to my character and motives, without evidentiary basis;

(d) Were made without affording me an opportunity to respond or be heard;

(e) Are prejudicial to me and may affect the conduct or outcome of any future proceedings.

1. These comments go beyond the scope of what was required to decide the application, and in my respectful submission, amount of a denial of procedural fairness.
2. I seek that the Court appropriate amend the reasons to remove or redact those comments; or declare that they are obiter dicta and not to be relied upon in any future proceedings thereby ensuring a fair and accurate court record.

1. The applicant's right of review of the appeal registrar's decision requires an original judicial decision in respect of the justiciable issue (rr 13.40 and 14.07 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)) - nothing more and nothing less. The original hearing necessitates disregard of the appeal registrar's reasons and a fresh decision explained by fresh reasons.
2. Therefore, in pursuit of that obligation, the first respondent's application for an extension of time within which to appeal from the procedural orders made on 11 June 2025 is dismissed because no appeal validly lies from those procedural orders (Faldyn & Badenoch [2022] FedCFamC1A 170 at [9]-[15]). The applicant's resistance to the extension application was correct, but his application for costs arising from the dispute must be dismissed because he is self-represented and adduced no evidence of incurring any legal costs. The orders made by the appeal registrar on 6 August 2025 need not be disturbed.
3. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the appeal registrar's reasons is puzzling because no finding of fact was made. The appeal registrar benignly recited the history of the heated litigation and correctly encapsulated the respective positions of the parties, both in respect of the procedural orders made in June 2025 and more broadly. The applicant's characterisation of the reasons as being adverse and prejudicial are not objectively borne out. Nonetheless, accepting the applicant does honestly perceive the appeal registrar's reasons reflect adversely upon him, nothing can be done to alleviate his concern.
4. The appeal registrar's reasons can have no "precedential or evidentiary weight" because these reasons substitute for those of the appeal registrar as an incident of the review process.
5. There is no jurisdiction or power to amend, redact, or delete portions of the reasons delivered by the appeal registrar. Nor is there any power to make an order suppressing the appeal registrar's reasons when the necessary premises for such an order are not made out (s 102PE and s 102PF). The appeal registrar's reasons will not be publishable without anonymisation and the attribution of a pseudonym under the provisions of Pt XIVB of the Act, as will be the case with these reasons. That is sufficient privacy.
6. The review application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding twenty (20) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Austin.