Saso & Saso: Appeal Dismissed Due to Procedural Delays and Unmeritorious Grounds
Failure to Comply with Court Orders Leads to Summary Dismissal of Property Appeal
Introduction
In the case of *Saso & Saso (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1A 113*, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed an appeal related to a property settlement. The appellant, Ms. Saso, sought to challenge previous court orders but faced multiple setbacks due to procedural non-compliance. Justice Tree delivered the judgment, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to both procedural failings and a lack of merit in the appellant's grounds.
Facts of the Case
The original proceedings between Mr. and Ms. Saso involved a property settlement, with final orders made in February 2024. Ms. Saso appealed the decision in March 2024 and amended her Notice of Appeal in April. Despite procedural orders for filing legal arguments, Ms. Saso failed to submit her Summary of Argument, even after requesting extensions. Days before the appeal hearing, she applied for an extension of time, which would have delayed the proceedings. The respondent, Mr. Saso, opposed this, and the court dismissed the application due to repeated procedural non-compliance and a lack of substantial merit in her grounds of appeal.
Issues
1. Should the court grant Ms. Saso an extension of time to file her Summary of Argument?
2. Should the appeal be dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines?
3. Do the appellant's grounds of appeal have any merit?
Applicable Legislation, Regulations, and Rules
1. **Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)**: Sections 79, 102NA, 102NB (related to property settlements).
2. **Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)**: Sections 67, 68.
3. **Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)**: Rules 13.45 (dismissal of appeals for non-compliance), 15.06 (extension of time).
Analysis
1. Procedural Non-Compliance:
The key issue in this case was whether Ms. Saso’s failure to comply with procedural orders justified the summary dismissal of her appeal. Rule 13.45 provides that the court may dismiss an appeal if a party does not comply with procedural orders or deadlines. The court found that Ms. Saso not only failed to file her Summary of Argument by the due date (May 2024) but also provided no valid explanation for her delay. Furthermore, her conduct throughout the proceedings had been marked by repeated delays, such as requesting multiple adjournments and changing legal representation.
Justice Tree referenced the case of *Gallo v Dawson* (1990), where it was held that an extension of time can only be granted if strict compliance would cause an injustice. However, in this case, no such injustice was found. Ms. Saso’s failure to comply and lack of effort to rectify the situation suggested a pattern of delay, possibly to prolong her stay in the matrimonial home without rent. Her request for further time, without filing the required documents, was seen as an attempt to delay rather than pursue justice.
2. Merits of the Appeal:
When considering whether to grant an extension, courts may look at the merits of the appeal. The appellant's grounds were found to be either repetitions of previously dismissed arguments or without merit. Several of her grounds were identical to those dismissed in *Saso & Saso (No 2)* [2023] and [2024], where Austin J had summarily rejected her appeal. Justice Tree highlighted the lack of new evidence or substantial claims, particularly in relation to procedural fairness. The earlier decisions from *Bethke & Bethke* (2019) and *House v The King* (1936) affirmed that courts will not permit appeals that have little chance of success to proceed, especially when compliance with court orders is lacking.
3. Prejudice to the Respondent:
Granting an extension would have caused clear prejudice to the respondent, Mr. Saso, who was entitled to a resolution of the property dispute. Delaying the case further would have extended his financial burden and postponed the sale of the matrimonial home. The court weighed the potential injustice to both parties and found that any further delay would disproportionately harm Mr. Saso, justifying the dismissal.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the appellant's failure to comply with procedural orders and a lack of merit in her grounds of appeal. Ms. Saso was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the fixed sum of $5,300 within 28 days. This decision reinforced the importance of adhering to court rules and demonstrated that repeated non-compliance could lead to the termination of legal proceedings.
Take-Home Lesson
This case highlights the critical importance of following procedural orders in family law cases. Courts are increasingly intolerant of delays, especially when they prejudice the other party. Litigants must ensure that they comply with deadlines and procedural rules to avoid their appeals being dismissed, and should not rely on repeated applications for extensions without merit.
