Jackamarra v Krakouer

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 Kelly & Huber has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This is an application for reinstatement of an appeal. It was deemed to have been abandoned when the applicant failed to file the transcript of the proceedings in time. The application was supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer but opposed by the respondent.
2. On 26 September 2025 a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) made a suite of parenting orders in this matter. One of the orders required the two children, then aged eight and five, to be known by the surname of the respondent. The applicant had sought an order for a hyphenated surname using both parents' names.
3. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against that order on 8 October 2025. Procedural orders were made on 20 October 2025. Order 6 required the applicant to file the transcript of the proceedings on or before 4.30 pm on 31 October 2025. Order 7 noted that if Order 6 was not complied with, the appeal would be deemed to be abandoned pursuant to r 13.22 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules").
4. The applicant said she ordered the transcript with a 10 day turn around on 20 October 2025. A follow up email was sent on 29 October 2025. The transcript supplier replied the following day advising that the transcript would be delivered on 3 November 2025, which it was. It has since been filed. Unfortunately, it was too late because the appeal had already been taken to be abandoned.
5. The applicant had not sought an extension of time in which to file the transcript. She explained at this time she was managing several personal and parenting issues and overlooked the date.
6. An appeal that has been deemed to be abandoned may be reinstated pursuant to r 13.44 of the Rules.
7. An appeal which has been regularly commenced should not likely be defeated by mere non-compliance with a procedural rule. Nobody suggested the appeal was so devoid of merit that it would be futile to reinstate it (Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 at [7]).
8. There is an acceptable explanation for the procedural default.
9. The respondent did not identify any prejudice to him if the appeal was reinstated.
10. These matters combine to persuade me that the order sought should be granted.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.