Justice Under Scrutiny: Appellant Challenges Primary Judge's Integrity and Seeks Full Court Appeal

Citation

Lim & Zong (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1A 98

Introduction

The case of Lim & Zong (No 2) revolves around an appellant seeking an appeal to be heard by a Full Court instead of a single judge. The appellant alleges significant errors and deliberate misstatements by the primary judge. The case examines the procedural aspects and the grounds required for such an appeal to be heard by a Full Court.

Facts

• Date of Primary Judgment: 16 April 2024
• Notice of Appeal Filed: 7 May 2024
• Primary Judge: Alleged to have made deliberate misstatements.
• Appellant: Haoyu Liu
• Respondent: Yuanyuan Zhu
• Nature of Complaint: The appellant claims that the primary judge made intentional errors in the judgment and altered submissions to fit her narrative. The appellant seeks that the appeal be heard by a Full Court to address these alleged mistakes.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant can justify the appeal being heard by a Full Court instead of a single judge.
2. Whether the transcript of the primary judge's oral reasons should be provided, highlighting any corrections.

Rule

The appellant must demonstrate compelling reasons for a Full Court appeal under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, particularly citing rules 10.13 and 10.14(b) regarding the correction of judgments and orders for transcripts.

Analysis

Key Paragraphs from the Judgment:

• Paragraph 1: Notice of Appeal filed on 7 May 2024, challenging the judgment delivered on 16 April 2024​​.
• Paragraph 44: The primary judge read out the judgment on 16 April 2024. The reasons for judgment were delivered orally and later corrected for written comprehension​​.
• Paragraph 16: The court orders the procurement of the transcript of the oral reasons, subject to the appellant reimbursing the court for the cost​​.

The appellant argues that the primary judge's errors were not just mistakes but deliberate alterations to the facts and submissions. The request for the Full Court to hear the appeal stems from the appellant's lack of confidence in a single judge's ability to impartially review the alleged errors.

The court examines whether the appellant has provided sufficient justification for a Full Court appeal. It considers the procedural correctness and the merits of the appellant's claims, weighing the necessity and practicality of a Full Court hearing versus a single judge review.

Reasons for Judgment

The court ultimately decides to dismiss the application for a Full Court appeal. The primary reason is the lack of sufficient justification from the appellant to deviate from the standard single judge appeal process. However, the court grants the appellant's request for the transcript of the primary judge's oral reasons to be provided, conditional upon the reimbursement of the costs involved.

Take Home Lesson

To challenge a primary judgment successfully and escalate an appeal to a Full Court, appellants must provide compelling evidence and justifications. Mere allegations of error or bias are insufficient without substantial backing. Procedural correctness and adherence to rules are critical in the appellate process.