Metzger & Dimov (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 64 (17 April 2026)

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

1. These reasons deal with an application filed in the appeal by the appellant husband, necessitated by his failure to comply with procedural orders made by the appeal registrar.

1. The parties commenced cohabitation just before their marriage in 2019 and they separated in July 2021.
2. The husband commenced proceedings for financial relief under Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") in June 2022. The cause was part-heard in June 2025, when the trial was successively adjourned in August 2025 until December 2025.
3. The cause was concluded in December 2025 on the basis there would be no adjustment of property interests and the applications under Pt VIII of the Act were dismissed.
4. The husband made an oral application for indemnity costs when the cause was concluded in December 2025. His application was dismissed (Order 3) and the parties were ordered to pay their own costs of the proceedings (Order 7), subject to the wife having to reimburse some valuation and mediation costs to the husband pursuant to interim orders (Oder 5).
5. Dissatisfied with the decision to dismiss his costs application, on 2 January 2026, the husband appealed from Orders 3 and 7.
6. The appeal was listed before the appeal registrar on 18 February 2026, when it was listed for hearing on 13 May 2026 and procedural orders were made to ensure the readiness of the appeal for hearing on that date.
7. The husband was ordered to file and serve his Summary of Argument and List of Authorities by 27 March 2026. He did not do so.
8. Until that date, the husband had freedom to amend his appeal (r 13.10(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), but that freedom vanished when he failed to comply with the procedural orders.
9. On 31 March 2026 the appeal registrar issued the husband with a notice of non-compliance with procedural orders.
10. On 16 April 2026, apparently in response to the appeal registrar's email, the husband filed an Application in an Appeal seeking leave amend his grounds of appeal to those annexed to his application. He did not specifically seek any extension of time within which to file and serve his Summary of Argument and List of Documents.
11. The application was listed for hearing on 17 April 2026. The wife resisted the application.

1. The husband relied upon his affidavit filed on 16 April 2026 in support of his application, supposedly to adequately explain, first, his delay in complying with the procedural orders, and second, why the proposed amendment of the appeal is of little consequence. The affidavit achieves neither objective.
2. The husband's solicitors have acted for him since 1 December 2025. They appeared for him before the primary judge on 5 December 2025, they filed his Notice of Appeal on 2 January 2026, they appeared for him before the appeal registrar on 18 February 2026, they filed his Application in an Appeal on 16 April 2026, and they appeared for him at the interlocutory hearing today. The husband and his solicitors have had more than enough time to be ready.
3. The original Notice of Appeal comprises 12 grounds of appeal. The husband now wants to prosecute 18 grounds of appeal but, taking into account all the sub-grounds, there would be about 40 alleged errors. The appeal hearing will therefore likely be longer and more complicated, so the following assertions made by the husband in his affidavit are rejected:

(a) the amended grounds do not incorporate new arguments (at [11], [29]); and

(b) the amended grounds do not fundamentally alter the nature of the appeal (at [12], [29]).

1. It is also incorrect for the husband to assert:

(a) the wife will not suffer any prejudice if leave is granted for him to rely upon the amended grounds (at [25]); and

(b) the amended grounds of appeal are filed within time (at [34]).

1. Nonetheless, the husband is correct to contend that the interests of justice require that the appeal be determined on its true merits (at [30]).
2. The appeal hearing is still just over three weeks away so there is still time within which the parties can be ready. To achieve a balance of justice between the parties, the husband will be permitted to rely upon the amended grounds of appeal he proposes, he will be given five further days within which to file and serve his Summary of Argument and List of Authorities, the time for the wife to file and serve her Summary of Argument and List of Authorities will be extended commensurately, and the costs of this interlocutory dispute will be costs in the appeal.

I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Austin.