De Lange v De Lange [2024] FCA 158

Federal Court of Australia

De Lange v De Lange [2024] FCA 158 File number(s): QUD 40 of 2024

Judgment of: PERRAM J

Date of judgment: 29 February 2024

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for registration of New Zealand judgment under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – requirement to file a hard copy judgment – where electronic copy of judgment filed with application – where hard copy of judgment subsequently filed

Legislation: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) s 67 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.21(1)(d), 2.25 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulation 2012 (Cth) reg 17(2)(b))

Cases cited: Forlongs Furnishings Ltd v Thom [2022] FedCFamC2G 94; 366 FLR 219 Herzfeld P and Prince T, Interpretation (2nd edition, Thomson Reuters, 2020)

Division: General Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Number of paragraphs: 16

Solicitor for the Applicant: Stonegate Legal

ORDERS QUD 40 of 2024

BETWEEN: DALENE DE LANGE Applicant

AND: MARTHINUS GARHARDUS DE LANGE Respondent

order made by: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 29 February 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The originating application dated 18 January 2024 be dismissed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J: 1 This is an application under s 67(1) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ('TTP Act') to register a judgment of the Family Court Division of the District Court of New Zealand. 2 The Applicant lodged the application on 18 January 2024 through the Federal Court's online filing system. Appended to that application, as part of the same file, was an electronic copy of the New Zealand judgment. The application was not accepted for filing until 29 January 2024. A sealed hard copy of the New Zealand judgment was then physically filed on 13 February 2024. 3 Certain requirements attend the filing of a New Zealand judgment as part of an application under s 67(1) of the TTP Act. Section 67(5)(b) of the TTP Act requires that such an application be made 'in accordance with the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulation'. For the purposes of that provision, reg 17(2)(b) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulation 2012 (Cth) ('TTP Regulation') prescribes that: (b) a sealed, certified or otherwise authenticated copy of the NZ judgement must be physically filed at the court in hard copy: (i) with the application; or (ii) if the application is filed by facsimile or email—within 15 working days after the application is filed. 4 From the chronology of filings sketched at [2] it can be seen that the Applicant made two attempts to file the New Zealand judgment: the initial, electronic filing of the judgment alongside the registration application itself on 18 January 2024; and the subsequent, physical filing of a hard copy of the judgment on 13 February 2024. 5 For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that either attempt satisfied either of the alternative requirements in reg 17(2)(b) of the TTP Regulation. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant made no valid application for the purposes of s 67(1) of the TTP Act.