Bias, Bible, and the Bench: Court Rejects Self-Represented Father’s Claim for Free Transcripts in Futile Appeal

In Partington & Partington [2025] FedCFamC1A 208, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a self-represented father’s bid to have the Court fund transcripts for his appeal — an appeal that related to an event already past. The father argued that earlier transcripts were essential to prove judicial bias, including claims that the trial judge mocked his faith, belittled his ADHD, and “tag-teamed” with opposing counsel. The Court, however, found no utility in the request, reiterating that litigants must bear the cost of their own appeals, and that transcripts are only funded in exceptional circumstances.

🧾 Facts and Issues

• On 27 August 2025, the primary judge made interim parenting and case management orders ([1]).
• The father (appellant) subsequently applied for that judge to recuse himself, alleging bias ([2], [9]–[10]).
• On 29 August 2025, he filed a Notice of Appeal, challenging an interlocutory order that restrained him from attending his child’s First Holy Communion ([3], [12]).
• On 3 September 2025, he filed an Application in an Appeal, seeking that the Court provide transcripts of hearings from February, May, and August 2025 at its own expense, citing financial hardship ([4], [5], [10]).
• The appellant alleged that earlier transcripts would prove the judge had:
• “Gaslit” and insulted him;
• Mocked his religion;
• Discriminated based on ADHD;
• Colluded (“tag-teamed”) with opposing counsel ([10]).
• The respondent and the ICL opposed, noting that the transcript of the appealed hearing (27 August) was already provided ([6]).
• The appeal concerned an event that had already occurred — the Communion — and thus arguably had no practical utility ([12], [25]).

Issues:

1. Was the Court obliged to provide transcripts at its own expense under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or the FCCA (Family Law) Rules 2021?
2. Did the interests of justice require the Court to fund transcripts to allow the appellant to pursue a bias claim?
3. Should the Court entertain an appeal about an event that had already passed?

⚖️ Law

Legislation

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) — rr 13.19–13.22 (appeal books and transcript requirements).
• Rule 13.19(4): The appellant is responsible for obtaining any relevant transcript.
• Rule 13.22: Failure to file transcript may result in appeal being deemed abandoned.

Authorities Cited

• Smits & Jansen [2025] FedCFamC1A 164 — The Court is funded to decide litigation, not to fund it ([20]).
• Sampson & Hartnett (Provision of Transcript) (2013) FLC 93-542 — set out factors for transcript funding discretion ([23]).
• Reece & Reece [2011] FamCAFC 24 — no utility in hearing appeals where the issue has passed ([25]).
• Naparus & Frankham [2018] FamCAFC 190; Naparus & Frankham (No 2) [2020] FamCAFC 238 — futility principle confirmed ([25]).
• Pitman & Hynes (No 3) [2021] FamCAFC 82 — same principle applied.
• Forbes & Bream (2008) 222 FLR 96 — transcript provision by the Court only in exceptional cases ([20]).

🔍 Application of Law to Facts

Justice Christie applied a clear two-step test ([18]):

1. Are the transcripts necessary to prosecute the appeal?

• No. The Court found the existing transcript (27 August 2025) already covered the subject of appeal — the Communion order ([6], [22]).
• Earlier transcripts were irrelevant to whether the restraining order was valid, especially as the event had passed ([25]).

1. Do the circumstances justify Court-funded transcripts?

• No. Although the appellant’s financial hardship was accepted ([19]), this alone did not justify Court expenditure.
• Justice Christie reiterated Smits & Jansen — the Court does not fund litigation, even for impecunious parties ([20]).

The appellant’s allegations of bias (mockery, discrimination, religious bigotry) were acknowledged but not tested at this stage. The Court held that any apprehended bias claim could be argued later by reference to existing transcripts, once the recusal application and substantive appeal were heard ([27]–[29]).

As the Communion had already occurred, the appeal lacked practical utility. Consistent with Reece & Reece and Naparus & Frankham, the Court would not spend public funds on a futile appeal ([25]–[26]).

🧮 Judgment and Reasoning

Decision:

• The Application in an Appeal dismissed ([Order, 1]).
• No order for Court-funded transcripts.
• The Court reaffirmed that it would only provide transcripts at its own expense in exceptional cases.
• The father retained the right to argue bias or futility before a different judge later ([28]–[30]).

Reasoning:

Justice Christie concluded that:

“This is not a case in which I could be satisfied that it is incumbent on the Court in the interests of justice to provide transcripts.” ([27])

He emphasised that:

• The appeal concerned a past event — therefore, even if successful, no practical remedy existed ([25]).
• The Court’s limited funding and the principles in Smits & Jansen prevent it from underwriting private litigation ([20]).
• While the appellant’s allegations were noted, they did not create an “exceptional case” under Sampson & Hartnett ([23], [27]).

💡 Take-Home Lessons

1. Litigants must fund their own appeals. Courts are not required to supply transcripts — even for self-represented or financially disadvantaged parties.
2. Exceptional circumstances are rare. Free transcripts are only ordered where necessary for justice, such as where the appeal cannot proceed otherwise.
3. Futility ends appeals. If the subject event has passed, courts will not continue appeals merely to make a point.
4. Bias claims must be substantiated, not speculated. Allegations of judicial misconduct require precise reference to transcripts, not broad accusations.
5. Procedural fairness ≠ public funding. Access to justice does not entitle a party to taxpayer-funded litigation.