Appendix 1 - Outcome and program statement
Appendix 2 - Staffing profile
Appendix 3 - Judgments of Interest4
Appendix 4 - Freedom of information
Appendix 5 - External involvement
Appendix 6 - Committees
Appendix 7 - Judges' activities
Appendix 8 - Contact details
Appendix 9 - Information required by other legislation 

Appendix 1 Outcome and program statement: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Table A1.1: Outcome 3: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Outcome 3: Apply and uphold the rule of law for litigants in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia through more informal and streamlined resolution of family law and general federal law matters according to law, through the encouragement of appropriate dispute resolution processes and through the effective management of the administrative affairs of the Court.	BUDGET 2019‑20 ($’000)	ACTUAL 2019‑20 ($’000)	VARIATION ($’000)
Program 3.1 – Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Administered Expenses
Ordinary annual services (Appropriation Act No.1)	880	726	154
Special appropriations	200	113	87
Departmental Expenses
Departmental appropriation1	67,803	66,981	822
Expenses not requiring appropriation in the budget year	2,367	2,949	-582
Total for Program 3.1	71,250	70,769	481
Total expenses for outcome 3	71,250	70,769	481
Average staffing level (number)	265	243

¹ Departmental appropriation combines ordinary annual services (Appropriation Act Nos 1 and 3) and retained revenue receipts under section 74 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Appendix 2 Staffing profile: Federal Circuit Court of Australia

From 1 July 2016, the Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016 designated the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, together with the Federal Court of Australia, a single statutory agency for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999.

Heads of jurisdiction continue to be responsible for managing the administrative affairs of their respective courts (excluding corporate services), with assistance from a CEO and Principal Registrar.

All staff are employed by the Federal Court entity under the Public Service Act 1999, regardless of which court or tribunal they work for or provide services to.

The total staffing number for the combined entity, as at 30 June 2020, was 1,091 employees. This includes 758 ongoing and 333 non-ongoing employees.

Staff providing direct support to the Federal Circuit Court (numbers of which are included in the total number above) include:

• 146 judicial support staff providing support to judges of the Federal Circuit Court
• 42 registrars providing direct support to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court, and
• 90 family consultants providing direct support to the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court.

At 30 June 2020, there were 68 judicial positions in the Federal Circuit Court, including the Chief Judge. Judges’ numbers are not included in the overall entity staffing number.

For more information about staffing see Part 4 (Management and accountability) and Appendix 9 (Staffing profile) of the Federal Court of Australia’s 2019–20 annual report.

Appendix 3 Judgments of interest

Family law

Coad & Morden [2019] FCCA 2682

The parties sought parenting, property and maintenance orders. The mother sought to relocate with the children (aged almost eight and almost six) 120km away from the father which would reduce the time the children could spend with the father. In contrast, the father sought an eventual week about arrangement that would require the mother to remain within reasonable proximity to the father. The judge heard evidence from the mother, father and a family consultant. The family consultant had formed the view that relocation would not be in the best interest of the children. However, the judge noted that the family consultant did not have the benefit of seeing the parties over the course of several days giving evidence nor the testing of evidence and lengthy submissions which led the judge to form a different view of the parties’ level of cooperation and capacity to co-parent. The judge decided that the best interests of the children were better met by allowing the relocation of the mother and for the children to live with her, as the children would still benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father through spending alternate weekends and half of school holidays with their father as well as special occasions.

In relation to the property application, the judge considered the father’s initial contributions to be ‘significantly greater’, resulting in an assessment of 65 per cent to the father on the basis of the parties’ contributions. However, taking into account the future needs of the parties (the disparity in capacity to earn income and the mother’s primary care of the children), the overall division of assets saw the mother receive 42.5 per cent of the asset pool.

Taking into consideration the property orders made, maintenance was ordered insofar as the father was to continue to pay the mortgage and outgoings on the former matrimonial home up and until January 2020, being the time it would take time to give effect to the property settlement.

Gallanders and Gallanders [2019] FCCA 3416

The applicant wife, assisted by her eldest son, asked the Court to dismiss her litigation guardian (State Trustees), remove her youngest son as the litigation guardian for the respondent, and alter previous property settlement orders so as to transfer the marital property entirely into her name (although there was no application made pursuant to section 79A). The parties had been married for 65 years and had three children who were all adults at the time of the proceedings. The applicant was aged in her late 80s and been diagnosed with dementia and the respondent was aged in his early 90s. The parties separated ‘involuntarily’ following a series of events involving their eldest son who had moved back into the marital home and engaged in financial abuse of his parents after being imprisoned for two years for family violence related charges. The eldest son’s financial abuse included attempting to rent out the marital home and coerce the applicant and respondent to move interstate to live with him. However, during this period evidence was provided suggesting that the respondent husband had been verbally abusive leading to the wife taking out an intervention order with the assistance of their eldest son.

The Court found that there was no prima facie case to suggest that the previous property settlement orders (which divided the couples property 50/50) were unjust, thus there was no reason to set these previous orders. On the issue of the litigation guardians, the Court found that there would be no other appropriate person to represent the husband and that there was no conflict of interest preventing the couple’s youngest son acting as the husband’s litigation guardian. The Court noted that the facts and circumstances of this case were an important reminder to practitioners in cases involving the elderly to take care about whom they should take instructions from, as the applicant’s solicitor had taken instructions form the eldest son, despite him not being his mother’s litigation guardian.

Jahoda & Jahoda (No.2) [2019] FCCA 107

These proceedings involved the parenting arrangements of a child who was aged seven at the time of the final hearing. The applicant father had not seen the child since 2016 and sought that time be re-introduced on a very gradual basis. The respondent mother opposed this, seeking instead that there be no time between the father and the child saying that the father posed a risk to the child. The father is a convicted paedophile, having spent 18 months in jail and was on the registered list of sex offenders for life. The father had also been convicted of making a threat to seriously injure the mother and a breach of parole (for which he served a further 12 months in prison). At the time of the final hearing there was a five-year Final Intervention Order due to expire in 2021.

The Court found that the presumption of shared parental responsibility was not appropriate in circumstances where there was a history of significant family violence and the child had no relationship with the father. The Court also found that the father lacked insight, minimised the nature of his previous offences and had significant mental health difficulties and as such, there was a significant risk to the child if there was contact with the father. The Court weighed the importance to the child of having the opportunity to know his father, but in light of the risks decided that the mother should have sole parental responsibility and made no orders for the father to spend time with the child, except for liberty to send appropriate gifts and cards to the child no more than four times a year.

Aguilar & Friel [2020] FCCA 1532

The applicant applied to review a divorce order made by a registrar on 27 February 2020. The divorce order provided for the divorce to take effect at the expiration of one month from the date of the order, as is the usual form of divorce orders. The applicant sought that the divorce order take effect after the conclusion of the property settlement proceedings that were pending, arguing that a final divorce order in Australia would hinder her ability to pursue property proceedings in Hong Kong.

The issue for the Court was the ambit of the Court’s discretion to extend the time in which the divorce order takes effect (under section 55(2)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)). The Court considered the policy background to the Family Law Act, 1975 of removing impediments to divorce, which was a change from earlier divorce law in Australia under the previous Matrimonial Causes Act 1959–1966 (Cth), and that of the United Kingdom. The Court rejected the argument that there was a general discretion to delay a divorce order which would require the Court to weigh ‘competing prejudices’. The Court found that the possibility of an appeal is the only consideration on which a divorce order could be delayed.

Migration

CFE16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor and CFD16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 1083

The applicants were a family of Iranian nationals (mother, father and son) who arrived at Christmas Island by boat in 2010. They were granted protection visas as they said they were stateless Faili Kurds. Two years later they had a daughter, who is an Australian citizen as a result of being born in Australia after the applicants obtained a protection visa. In February 2014, the applicants travelled overseas on a temporary travel document. On return to Australia, they admitted to having travelled to Iran on Iranian passports. As Iranian passports would not have been issued to stateless Faili Kurds their protection visas were cancelled by the Minister’s delegate. While their daughter had a right to remain in Australia, as an Australian citizen, it was unrealistic for her to do so if her parents’ visa was cancelled. At the heart of the decision was whether the daughter, on a practical level, would be able to enjoy her Australian citizenship. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Minister’s decision to cancel the applicants’ protection visas. In coming to its decision, the AAT considered various factors including ‘the interests of the children in Australia’. The Court found that the AAT had not approached the matter correctly as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child required the AAT to take into account the best interests of the children as a ‘primary consideration’. The effect of the Convention was to require the decision-maker to identify the best interests of the children and then to assess the strengths of the other considerations to determine whether they outweigh the best interests of the children.

FUR18 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 1796

The applicant came to Australia by boat in 2013 seeking asylum. He applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the Minister’s delegate. When the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) reviewed the decision the applicant sought to provide further submissions about his sexuality, disclosing for the first time that his long-term de facto relationship with an Australian citizen was with a male-to-female transgender person and the applicant identified as queer. The applicant said that he did not feel comfortable discussing these details during his interview because the interpreter was a strict Muslim. As this was new information, s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided that it could only be considered in ‘exceptional circumstances’. The IAA did not accept that the applicant had shown ‘exceptional circumstances’ despite his religious and cultural background. The judge found that the IAA erred in the manner in which it approached its task, giving an unduly narrow definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ rather than taking into account the applicant’s circumstances more generally.

DUA16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor and CHK16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 1128

The applicants are Sri Lankan nationals who discovered that the migration agent had used the same submissions for each of them when their cases happened to be listed on the same day before the same judge. Their cases were heard together as they involved substantially the same allegations concerning the conduct of a solicitor who had acted for each of the applicants and lodged submissions on their behalf to the IAA. The submissions made to the IAA by the solicitor for each of the applicants reflect background circumstances and claims of an unrelated third person. Following discovery against the Minister, it became apparent that the solicitor involved had used substantially the same submissions in around 40 different cases.

Like the applicants, the solicitor is of Tamil ethnicity. She was paid professional fees for this work.

After being shown submissions she had provided to the IAA on behalf of 40 clients, all making essentially the same claims, she conceded that she used template submissions. In none of the 40 cases could she recall having advised her clients of any opportunity to seek to provide new information. The Court found that the submissions she made to the IAA did not reflect the cases of either applicant and effectively stultified the proper performance of the IAA’s functions. The Court’s decision was upheld by the Full Court of the Federal Court on appeal in December 2019. Recently, the High Court of Australia has granted special leave to hear a further appeal.

DZU17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 491

The applicant applied for a protection visa as he feared persecution due to his involvement as an LTTE intelligence officer. He initially said that he had become a target after he had made a cake decoration design of the LTTE leader and paper models of Hindu temples, and was suspected of being involved in sabotaging of speakers at a local Buddhist temple and the bombing of a wine shop. A delegate of the Minister refused the visa application. When the review of the delegate’s decision was before the IAA, the applicant sought to rely upon ‘new information’ where he claimed to have worked as a senior intelligence officer for 17 years for the LTTE and had witnessed massacres and had himself been tortured, leaving him with extensive scarring all over his body. The IAA found that there were no ‘exceptional circumstances’ which justified the consideration of the new information under s 473DD of the Migration Act. The Court found that while the IAA gave detailed consideration to why the applicant had not disclosed the new claims earlier, it did not consider the seriousness of the new claims and the impact that they may have on the case as a whole. The Court concluded that the IAA had not properly considered whether the applicant had established ‘special circumstances’ justifying the IAA to receive ‘new information’ as it had not properly weighed the potential impact of the new claim.

CUF18 & Ors v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2505

The applicant sought a protection visa saying that she faced a risk or chance of serious harm because of her gender. The applicant argued that the IAA was illogical and unreasonable as the country information indicated that ‘sexual violence is a serious, ongoing social problem throughout Sri Lanka’ although urban areas were safer than rural areas and some women were more at risk than others. The Court noted that sexual violence against women in Sri Lanka is an undeniable reality (which the IAA itself recognised when stating that it was a serious ongoing social problem), however the country information was more specific than suggested by the applicants and had to be read in context. The Court was critical of the applicant’s attempts to ‘cherry pick’ parts of the country information available as the country information provided specific details as to when women are vulnerable to sexual violence and the applicant did not possess the particular characteristics of relevance as detailed in the country information (such that the second applicant’s chance of harm was only remote). The application was dismissed as there was a reasonable and logical basis for the IAA’s findings.

BHH18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2020] FCCA 337

The applicant argued that IAA failed to have regard to information about whether the applicant’s sporting club was affiliated to a recognised terrorist organisation. The relevant document was referred to in a footnote in a document provided to the delegate who refused the visa applicant. In effect, the applicant argued that ‘a footnote within a footnote’ was ‘material before the Minister’ for the purposes of s 473DC of the Act and was not ‘new information’. If the applicant’s argument had been accepted, then one footnote in the applicant’s submissions would have the effect of putting at least 20 further documents before the delegate. The Court noted that the applicant had not drawn the delegate’s attention to the footnoted document in his written submissions and was relying on the document to advance what was, in effect, a new claim. The Court also noted that the applicant’s submission had the effect of ‘burying the delegate in paperwork’. The application was dismissed.

Abbas v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2020] FCCA 1051

This case arose from an applicant purportedly filing an application for review at the AAT outside of the prescribed time limit, with the Tribunal finding that it did ‘not have jurisdiction’. Following a number of recent cases from the Full Federal Court regarding the clarity of notification letters advising an applicant of the time in which they could lodge an appeal, the judge undertook a detailed analysis of all of these cases in order to determine whether the notification letter in the present case was clear and unequivocal. After summarising the relevant principles from a series of Full Federal Court and the Federal Court authorities, the Court determined that the Tribunal was correct to find that it did not have jurisdiction as the notification letter was ‘clear enough’. The application was, accordingly, dismissed.

Fair work

Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Regional Express Holdings (No.2) [2020] FCCA 219

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) claimed that the respondent had, among other things, threatened to take ‘adverse action’ against employees (or prospective employees). Section 340 of the Fair Work Act prohibits adverse action against an employee or prospective employee who exercises a workplace right (such as insisting upon enterprise agreement entitlements). In the earlier decision of Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Regional Express Holdings [2016] FCCA 316 (affirmed by the High Court in Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [2017] HCA 55) the Court had found that the union could bring the application. The claim arose from the content of a letter sent to applicants for a cadet pilot program (a 34 week intensive program). The letter identified the cadetship as a special honour. It emphasised the importance of cadets honouring their promises. The letter discussed an example of cadets who had promised the ‘earth’, but then refused to volunteer at particular accommodation provided by the respondent. The letter went on to identify such cadets as lacking in integrity. The letter then asked applicants to give a solemn promise to give back to the respondent by volunteering to undertake specific activities. It was up to an applicant to select what he or she nominated as the activity or promise. The AFAP claimed the letter was a threat to take adverse action against, among others, any cadet or employee who chose to insist on staying in accommodation provided for in or as a result of the applicable enterprise agreement. After hearing evidence from the author of the letter, the Court found that letter did not, among other things, constitute a threat of adverse action. The letter did not require a cadet to give or make any particular promise, and even encouraged candidates not to apply if they had any doubts. Rather, the letter highlighted the importance of applicants honouring commitments they offered as part of selection process. As a result, the claim that the letter was a threat of adverse action was dismissed.

Rhodes v Firepower Pump Systems Pty Ltd trading as Territory Fire Service & Training [2020] FCCA 1649

The applicant sought payment of a redundancy following resignation of employment from the respondent. The Court was required to consider the meaning of the term ‘redundancy’ within the context of the relevant award (a common clause in construction industry awards). The terms of the award defined ‘redundancy’ as any situation where the employment was terminated, so long as there was no misconduct or refusal of duty. The issue affects large numbers of construction industry employees. The Court concluded that whilst resignation was not within the ordinary concept of ‘redundancy’ at common law, it did fall within the extended definition of ‘redundancy’ as the term was defined in the award.

Kernaghan v Neffray Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] FCCA 1141

In Kernaghan v Neffray Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] FCCA 1141, a decision significant for the long distance transport industry, the applicant, a long-distance truck driver, sought the payment of various entitlements on the basis that the respondents contravened the Road Transport (Long Distance Operations) Award 2010 (Award). The respondents denied liability and instead alleged that, on the proper interpretation of the award, that the applicant was overpaid during the course of employment. The Award provided for two alternative methods of calculating minimum payments for drivers’ rates per kilometre and rates based upon driving time (neither of which provided for payment for non-driving time). The applicant had been paid a flat hourly rate for all of his time working and claimed that payments for non-driving time did not satisfy the award entitlements for driving time or distance. The Court determined that the nature of the flat hourly rate was appropriately categorised, in the context of the award, as that of a guaranteed minimum rate under cl 13.2. Thus, the applicant would only be entitled to greater payments under the award when the fortnightly payments for driving kilometres exceeded the contracted hourly payments for that fortnight.

Bankruptcy

Janezic v Official Receiver & Anor and Davidson v Official Receiver & Anor [2020] FCCA 1153

The applicants were punters who ‘invested’ in a now infamous Ponzi scheme operated by William Vlahos as a betting syndicate based upon an alleged formula for selecting winners of horse races. Vlahos was made bankrupt and the trustee sought to recover money paid to the applicants prior to Vlahos’s bankruptcy to distribute equally among all of Vlahos’s creditors. The trustee relied upon an administrative process of issuing Notices under s 139ZQ of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 rather than bringing proceedings to recover the money under s 120 of the Act (transactions that are void as a result of a lack of consideration). Section 139ZQ was inserted into the Act to simplify recovery of assets by trustees. The applicants argued that it was not open to the trustee to rely upon notices under s 139ZQ as Vlahos had been discharged from bankruptcy three years before the notices were issued and the time limit for bringing an action under s 120 of the Act had expired days after the notices were issued. The Court determined that s 138ZQ Notices could be issued after a bankrupt was discharged from bankruptcy and that the notices were valid despite the limitation period for an action under s 120 expiring shortly after the notices were issued.

Administrative

Ahamed v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCCA 1245

The applicant appealed a decision of the AAT that resulted in a Disability Support Pension repayment debt due to the applicant not advising Centrelink that his wife had entered Australia and commenced living with him. The applicant had been overpaid as he was receiving the single rate, rather than the couple rate for one member of a couple. The applicant argued that as his wife had no earning capacity (due to the visa she had come to Australia on, limited English skills and pregnancy-related illness) there was a ‘special reason’ to make him eligible for the single rate. The Court noted that the ‘couple rate’ was underpinned by the notion that couples can share their resources and take advantage of economies of scale, however in this case the applicant’s wife had no income and was said to have no entitlement to social security during the relevant period. Alternatively, if the applicant’s wife was entitled to social security the fact that the single pension amount for the applicant was less than the total of the couple rate that would have been payable for each of them (but unclaimed by his wife) was a powerful reason for the debt to be waived. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the AAT to determine according to law.

Consumer

Abdi & Anor v Lu [2020] FCCA 1307

The applicant, an immigrant from Somalia with limited English, purchased a Toyota Kluger under a hire purchase agreement (inclusive of insurance) from the respondent who operated a rental car business (who also had limited English and had drawn the hire purchase contract). The applicant initially sought relief after the respondent repossessed the car as the applicant was in arrears for a majority of the contract, which was granted as the respondent had not complied with the detailed provisions of the Consumer Credit Code (with respect to repossessing the vehicle). In addition, she and her husband had both had car accidents in the vehicle and she sought indemnity under the insurance agreement (at the time of the husband’s accident he was using the vehicle for his Uber driving business). Owing to the simple wording of the contract, the Court found that the contract was not fully compliant with the complex provisions of the National Credit Code, however the Court did not find it appropriate to vary the terms of the contract given its relatively clear terms and reasonable interest rate. The Court found that late payment fees imposed were not enforceable on the basis that they were penalties. The Court found that the applicant was entitled to be indemnified against the damage arising out of the accident she was in, despite not having paid the insurance payments on time, as a result of the operation of the Insurance Contracts Act, however the insurance did not extend to her husband’s liability to a third party. As such, orders were made for the respondent to pay the balance outstanding for repairs less the insurance excess and for the registration of the car to be transferred to her name.

Intellectual property

Chris and Dora Di Lorenzo Partnership v Denversian Pty Ltd & Anor [2020] FCCA 1718

This case concerned a contest between two parties who applied to register the same trade mark ‘black sheep’ in 2015. The applicant was based in New South Wales and applied for the mark first, and the respondent operated a bistro restaurant in Queensland, and applied to register the mark six months later, although it had been operating its restaurant since 2013. The applicant appealed under s 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) from the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the applicant’s opposition and allowing registration of the trade mark ‘black sheep’ in respect of ‘restaurants; restaurant services; café and bistro services’ pursuant to s 44(3), although the mark had initially been accepted under s 44(4) (permitting concurrent registrations). The applicant asserted that they had first used a similar trade mark also including ‘black sheep’ since before the respondent, and argued ownership (under s 58) and absolute first prior use (under s 58A of the Act). The Court found that the applicant’s claims of relevant prior use and absolute first use were not established on the facts. The applicant could not establish it had been engaged in relevant trade since 2013 nor that it had used the same trade mark throughout the period. The case is of interest because the Court considered the scope and operation of s 58A, and the complexities inherent in the wording of the section. The Court considered that because s 58A only applies when a trade mark has been accepted for registration under s 44(4), the section does not require that the applicant again establish that the relevant trade marks are substantially identical or deceptively similar (as that would rob s 58A(1) of any role to perform, and would be contrary to the legislative intention explained in the Explanatory Memorandum).

Appendix 4 Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not apply to any request for access to documents of the Court unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature. While there is no definition within this Act or the Privacy Act of the term ‘matters of an administrative nature’, the High Court decision in Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General and Another [2013] HCA 52 in their joint judgment considering this term pointed out:

[47],…the only documents which courts and specified tribunals, authorities and bodies are obliged to open to increase public scrutiny are those documents relating to the management and administration of registry and office resources.’

There were eleven Freedom of Information application requests made to the Court for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme. This requirement, in Part II of the Freedom of Information Act, has replaced the former requirement to publish a Section 8 Statement in an annual report.

An agency plan showing what information is published in accordance with the Information Publication Scheme requirements is accessible from agency websites.

Freedom of information and the Information Publication Scheme agency plan for the Federal Circuit Court can be found on the Court’s website.

Access to information outside the Freedom of Information Act

Rule 2.08 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 provides that a search of the Court’s records may be undertaken by the Attorney-General (in family law proceedings), a party, a lawyer for a party, a child representative (in family law proceedings) or a person granted leave by the Court or a registrar. Leave may be granted if a proper interest is shown and may be subject to conditions. In relation to access to documents in general federal law proceedings, the Court applies the same rule as that prescribed by the Federal Court; see rule 2.08B. This rule identifies certain categories of court documents as being available for inspection without leave.

There are other legislative provisions that limit publication in various proceedings; for example, s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975, s 110X of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and s 91X of the Migration Act 1958. In addition, Part 6A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 gives the Court general power to suppress/prohibit publication of evidence in respect of general federal law provisions (Part XIA of the Family Law Act 1975 deals with suppression and non-publication orders in proceedings under that Act).

Enquiries concerning access to documents or freedom of information matters generally should be directed to:

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar Federal Circuit Court of Australia
GPO Box 9991
Melbourne VIC 3000

or emailed to customer.service@federalcircuitcourt.gov.au.

Further advice on making freedom of information requests may be obtained by calling (02) 9893 5748.

Categories of documents

The Federal Circuit Court registries maintain the following categories of documents on behalf of the Court:

• documents relating to matters heard by the Court including applications, affidavits, transcripts, orders and copies of judgments
• registers and indexes of matters coming to the Court, and
• general correspondence.

The Federal Circuit Court maintains the following categories of documents:

• general correspondence
• documents concerning the development and implementation of policy, guidelines and procedures, and
• documents concerning the Court’s administrative and financial operations.

Other documents

The Court holds and makes available on request a range of documents including brochures, fact sheets and general information leaflets. These are available on the Court’s website at www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au.

Privacy

The Court holds personal information for two purposes:

• to help resolve and, if necessary, determine matters before the Court (the judicial purpose), and/or
• to assist in administration (the administrative purpose).

Information used for judicial purposes is held in case files and the case management computer system. This information is exempt from the Privacy Act 1988 and Freedom of Information Act 1982. Other statutory provisions and non-publication powers of the Court, designed to protect parties and their children, are applicable to this information.

Information used for administrative purposes is collected as part of the day-to-day running of the Court. Many documents for administrative purposes are held by the Federal Court as the provider of the corporate services for the Court.

The collection, storage and disclosure of this information is governed by the provisions of both the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

The Australian Government Agencies Privacy Code came into force on 1 July 2018. Agencies are required to take reasonable steps to implement practices, procedures and systems to ensure compliance with the code.

Consistent with these requirements, the Court has the following in place:

• Privacy Policy
• Privacy Impact Assessment Policy, and
• Data Breach Response Plan.

During 2018–19, a Privacy Awareness eLearning module was released to be completed by all staff. Completion of this module continued throughout 2019–20.

In addition, the Court has a designated Privacy Champion and Privacy Officer.

Appendix 5 External involvement

The Federal Circuit Court has a number of strategies for strengthening its partnerships with clients and other stakeholders, such as legal practitioners, non-government organisations, and government agencies and departments.

External stakeholders include:

• the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department
• the Commonwealth Department of Human Services
• other government departments and agencies
• child welfare authorities
• legal services commissions and community legal centres
• law societies and the Law Council of Australia
• community-based and non-government organisations, and
• the Australian Federal Police.

Relationships with these groups are managed either by the Chief Judge, other judges or the CEO and Principal Registrar on behalf of the Chief Judge.

There are several established channels through which external stakeholders may inform the Court and affect its processes and client service delivery, including the following.

Australian Institute of Family Studies

The Australian Institute of Family Studies was established under s 114B of the Family Law Act and is a forum for exchange of information and research.

Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia

The Chief Judge meets regularly with the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia and the family law and general federal law committees of state, territory and regional Bars and Law Societies. In addition, the Federal Circuit Court has established relationships with bar associations, law societies and key stakeholders in regards to migration and other general federal law matters.

Local consultations and other activities for improved service delivery

Staff continue to regularly engage with numerous external groups such as local family law pathways networks, legal aid, bar associations and law societies, local practitioners and practitioners’ associations, community legal centres, family relationship centres, community organisations and support groups, child protection agencies, family violence committees and organisations, state courts, universities and police services. Staff also work with the Family Advocacy and Support Services program, with the aim of enhancing their presence in the registries.

Appendix 6 Committees

Table A6.1: Federal Circuit Court Committees, 30 June 2020

OVERARCHING COMMITTEES
Title	Members	Terms of reference
National Practice Area Committee	Chief Judge Alstergren (Chair) Judge Driver Judge Riethmuller Judge Altobelli Judge Spelleken Judge McGuire Judge Dunkley Judge Cole OAM Judge Willis AM Judge Harland Judge McNab Judge Kendall David Pringle Virginia Wilson Jordan Di Carlo Catherine Bull (Secretariat)	To advise the Chief Judge about current and proposed case management structures, judicial conduct, judicial education and possible interaction between the Federal Circuit Court and other courts. Each area of the Court is represented according to national practice area: Family law north (comprising Queensland) (Judge Spelleken) Family law south (comprising Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania) (Judge McGuire) Family law east (comprising New South Wales and the ACT) (Judge Dunkley) Migration law (Judge Riethmuller) General federal law (Judge McNab)
Case Management Judges Committee	Judge Driver (National Case Management Judge) Judge Brown Judge Hughes Judge Terry Judge Dunkley Judge Street Judge Middleton Judge Boyle Judge McNab Judge Kendall Amanda Morris	To assist the Chief Judge and the National Coordinator of Case Management in the case management of the Court and to enhance the adoption of consistent case management practices throughout the Court.
Legal Committee	Judge Driver (Chair) Judge Jarrett Judge Hughes Judge Riley Judge Harland Judge Kendall Judge Baird Virginia Wilson Amanda Morris	To consider and refer recommendations to the Chief Judge and the Court on possible rule amendments and wider legal issues concerning the Court’s jurisdiction.

WORKING GROUPS AND COMMITTEES
Title	Members	Terms of reference
Finance Committee	Judge Driver (Chair) Judge Cole OAM Judge A Kelly Judge Costigan Judge Boymal Catherine Sullivan Kathryn Hunter David Pringle	To consider the Court’s budget position and financial affairs generally, and to make recommendations to the Chief Judge where appropriate on policies and procedures in light of expenditure. The committee also assists the CEO and Principal Registrar in the discharge of his or her obligations arising from the delegation of responsibility for the Federal Circuit Court budget, as part of the broader entity.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Access to Justice Committee	Judge Willis AM (Chair) Judge Coates Judge C Kelly Judge Terry Judge Kemp Judge Myers AM Judge Stewart Judge Young Judge Boyle Dennis Remedio Mr Rick Welsh	To assess how the Federal Circuit Court can improve access to justice in this Court for Indigenous litigants.
Family Violence Committee *joint committee	Judge Hughes (Chair) Justice Ryan Justice Hannam Judge Brown Judge Spelleken Judge Terry Judge Bender Janet Carmichael Di Lojszczyk Lisa O’Neill Melissa Buhagiar (Secretariat)	To provide advice to the Chief Judge, the Chief Justice and the CEO and Principal Registrar of both Courts on the issue of family violence.
Judicial Wellbeing Committee	Chief Judge Alstergren (ex officio) Judge Driver Judge Altobelli (Chair) Judge Willis AM Judge Stewart Judge Vasta Judge Heffernan Jordan Di Carlo Regional wellbeing coordinators Judge Burchardt (Dandenong and Melbourne) (with Judge Stewart) Judge Obradovic (Parramatta) Judge Monahan (Lionel Bowen Building Sydney) Judge Costigan (Newcastle) Judge Kendall (Perth) Judge Hughes (Canberra) Judge Purdon-Sully (Brisbane) Judge Stewart (Melbourne) (with Judge Burchardt) Judge Driver (William Street Sydney) Judge Heffernan (Adelaide) Judge Willis AM (all single judge registries) Judge Altobelli (overall coordinator)	To promote and protect the health and wellbeing of the Court’s judges throughout their judicial careers.
Judicial Education Committee	Judge Altobelli Judge Cole OAM Judge Vasta Judge Stewart Judge Street Judge Mercuri Judge Kendall (Chair) Judge Kari	To provide advice and recommendations to the Chief Judge on judicial education and professional development and to coordinate and promote professional development activities.
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Committee	Judge Harman Judge Vasta Judge Obradovic	To identify barriers to access to justice in the Federal Circuit Court for persons from non-English speaking backgrounds. Identify the relevant issues and develop and implement strategies to overcome such barriers.
Children’s Committee *joint committee	Judge Cole OAM (Chair) Justice Moncrieff (Family Court of Western Australia) Justice Forrest Janet Carmichael Kylie Beckhouse (Legal Aid NSW) Alexandra Wearne (ICL, NSW) Kate Bint (ICL, Qld), and Gayathri Paramasivam (Victoria Legal Aid)	To explore the work to be undertaken with respect to the involvement of children in parenting proceedings and improving the experiences of children in the family law system.
Research and Ethics Committee *joint committee	Justice Stevenson (Chair) Justice Gill Judge M. Neville Virginia Wilson Janet Carmichael Manuela Galvao Michael Raine (Secretariat)	To consider research proposals that are received by the Court on their merits and against ethical guidelines.

COLLABORATIVE COMMITTEES
Title	Members	Terms of reference
Joint Rules Harmonisation Working Group	Chief Justice Alstergren Deputy Chief Justice McClelland Justice Ryan Justice Watts Justice Rees Justice Williams Justice Hartnett Judge Driver Judge Hughes Judge Harland Virginia Wilson Emma Poole Christopher Lum Jordan Di Carlo	Responsible for developing a common set of rules, forms and case management in the Courts. The working group is chaired by the Hon Dr Chris Jessup QC, assisted by two barristers, Ms Emma Poole and Mr Christopher Lum.
Joint Costs Advisory Committee	Justice Benjamin AM (Chair) Philippa Lynch (High Court) Scott Tredwell (Federal Court) Virginia Wilson (Family Court and Federal Circuit Court) Amanda Morris (Family Court and Federal Circuit Court)	To inquire into, and make recommendations on, any variations in the quantum of costs (including expenses and fees for witnesses) allowable to legal practitioners which should be contained in the scales of costs in the Rules of the respective courts.
Audit and Risk Management Committee	Mr Ian Govey, External Member (Chair) Justice Nicholas (Federal Court) Justice Farrell (Federal Court) Justice Murphy (Federal Court) Justice Benjamin AM (Family Court) Justice Harper (Family Court) Justice McEvoy (Family Court) Judge Driver (Federal Circuit Court) Judge Howard (Federal Circuit Court) Ms Frances Cawthra (External Member)	The Audit Committee is established in accordance with s 45 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The CEO and Principal Registrar must establish and maintain an Audit Committee, with the functions and responsibilities required by s 17 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014. The functions of the committee are to: provide independent assurance of the effectiveness of the entity’s Risk Management Framework review compliance with the entity’s Risk Management Policy monitor the implementation of the entity’s Risk Management Plan review compliance with finance law, including financial and performance reporting review risk reports periodically (quarterly and annual reports) review the internal control programs and advise whether key controls are appropriate and are operating effectively monitor and understand the potential impact of emerging risks on the entity’s ability to achieve its objectives, and provide assurance that the entity has well-designed business continuity and disaster recovery arrangements in place and are tested periodically.
Federal Court Security Committee	Justice Logan (Chair) (Federal Court) Deputy Chief Justice McClelland (Family Court) Judge Vasta (Federal Circuit Court) Sia Lagos (Federal Court) Catherine Sullivan (Federal Court) Steve Fewster (Federal Court)	Considers issues of security across the Federal Courts with cross-jurisdictional representation, supporting the overarching security issues across the entity.
Digital Court Program Steering Group	Sia Lagos (Federal Court) Catherine Sullivan (Federal Court) Craig Reilly (Federal Court) Jamie Crew (Federal Court) Justice McClelland (Family Court) Judge Jarrett (Federal Circuit Court) Justice Perram (Federal Court) Justice Sutherland (Family Court of Western Australia) Suzanne Taylor (Family Court of Western Australia)	To oversee the introduction of the Digital Court File and document management system and associated case management.

Appendix 7 Judge activities

Chief Judge William Alstergren

Professional and other memberships

• National Judicial College of Australia
• Law Institute of Victoria
• Victorian Bar
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• International Hague Network of Judges

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 3 July 2019, The International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice, University of Westminster Law School, Gender, Inclusivity and Protecting the 21st Century Family Conference, Westminster, UK, plenary session Chair.
• 2 August 2019, Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association and Newcastle Registry of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, Hunter Valley Family Law Conference, Hunter Valley, NSW, keynote speaker.
• 5–8 August 2019, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 31 October 2019, Law Institute of Victoria, Young Lawyers Function, Melbourne, welcome speech.
• 20 November 2019, Victorian Bar, Meet the Judges, Melbourne.
• 9 December 2019, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, Indonesian Delegation, Sydney, welcome speech.
• 7 February 2020, Australian Institute of Family Law Arbitrators and Mediators, AIFLAM Arbitration Seminar, Melbourne. Keynote speaker: Arbitration in Family Law Property.
• 10 February 2020, Law Institute of Victoria, Inaugural LIV State of the Profession Briefing 2020, Melbourne. Keynote speaker: The Challenges and Opportunities in the Court for 2020.
• 5 March 2020, Law Council of Australia, Immigration Conference, Melbourne, welcome speech.
• 6 March 2020, Australian Bar Association and Bar Association of Queensland, Annual Conference, Brisbane, Plenary session, Chair.
• 29 April 2020, Victorian Bar, In Conversation with His Honour, Will Alstergren, Chief Justice of the Family Court and Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court and Geoffrey Dickson, QC. Webinar guest speaker.
• 7 May 2020, Victorian Law Foundation, Law Week Webinar, Domestic Violence in the Age of COVID-19, webinar guest speaker.
• 21 May 2020, Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, Webinar: COVID-19 List Panel Discussion, panellist.

Judge Rolf Driver

Professional and other memberships

• New South Wales Bar Association
• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Law Council of Australia (Federal Litigation Section)
• International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 17–22 February 2020, International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, World Conference, Costa Rica.

Judge Grant Riethmuller

Professional and other memberships

• Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section
• Judicial Conference of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 3–5 July 2019, The International Centre for Family Law, Policy, and Practice, Gender, Inclusivity and Protecting the 21st Century Family, London. Presented: The effectiveness of private and public mediation in resolving family property disputes.
• 5–7 March 2020, Law Council of Australia, Immigration Law Conference 2020, Crossing the Borders of Immigration Law, keynote address, Melbourne.
• Other external activities: Chapter: Australia, ‘Reform and Complexity: A Difficult Balance’, International Survey of Family Law, 2019 Edition.

Judge Nick Nicholls

Professional and other memberships

• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• National Judicial College of Australia
• Hellenic Australian Lawyers Association

Judge Kevin Lapthorn

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Association of International Family Judges
• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• Bar Association of Queensland
• New South Wales Bar Association

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 23 August 2019, Queensland Young Lawyers, Conference in the Courtroom Workshop, Brisbane.
• 23–24 January 2020, Law Society Northern Territory, Start at the Top Family Law Conference, Darwin. Presented: So you want to get out of here? Being practical in the preparation of a relocation case.

Judge Kate Hughes

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• National Judicial College
• Women Lawyers Association of the Australian Capital Territory

Judge Philip Burchardt

Professional and other memberships

• International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges
• Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand
• The Industrial Bar Association
• International Society of Family Law
• International Academy of Family Lawyers

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 12–14 September 2019, European Society of International Law, Annual Conference, Athens, Greece. Presented: Sovereignty: A concept in flux.
• 17–22 February 2020, International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, World Conference, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Judge Robert Cameron

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.

Judge Tom Altobelli

Professional and other memberships

• Law Society of New South Wales, Honorary Judicial Member
• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Board Member
• Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney University
• Member Editorial Board, Australian Journal of Family Law
• Member Editorial Board, Australasian Journal of Dispute Resolution
• Chair, New Perspectives on Courtroom Leadership program, National Judicial College of Australia
• Chair, Family Law For Magistrates training program, National Judicial College of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney. Presented: Delivering Issues-based judgments.
• 15–17 August 2019, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Australian Chapter Conference, Sydney. Presented: A New Approach to Contentious Issues: Is Court the Only Realistic Option? with Dr Lyn Greenberg and Anne-Marie Rice.
• 8 February 2020, Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, Family Law Intensives, Sydney. Presented: Latest and Greatest Cases.
• 28 February 2020, MacArthur District Law Society Annual Continuing Legal Education seminar, Camden. Presented: The professional responsibility implications of some recent family law cases.
• 12 March 2020, Illawarra and Southern Highlands Pathways Network, Annual Judicial Dinner. Presented: Property settlements.

Judge Stephen Coates

Professional and other memberships

• Queensland Bar Association
• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
• International Bar Association
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• LAWASIA
• Family Law Section
• Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland

Judge Charlotte Kelly

Professional and other memberships

• Law Society of South Australia
• Women Lawyers Association
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• National Judicial College of Australia Indigenous Justice (South Australia Committee)
• Australian Association of Judicial Administration
• Duncan Memorial Scholarship Committee, University of Adelaide
• Mentor with Pinnacle Foundation, University of Adelaide

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 22 February 2020, Family Law Pathways, National Family Law Pathways Conference, guest presenter.
• 29 May 2020, Family Law Path Network South Australia, Adelaide. Presented: An update on practices and procedures adopted by the Court to manage family law matters in these unprecedented times.
• 29 May 2020, Family Law Path Network South Australia, Adelaide. Presented: ‘Our Kids’ – How to Keep Them Out of the Care System.

Judge Dale Kemp

Professional and other memberships

• Board Member of AIFLAM (nominated member for Federal Circuit Court)
• Committee Member Anglo Australasian Lawyers Society (Vice President)
• Committee Member Family Law Committee of the International Bar Association
• Law School Advisory Board Member, University of Notre Dame, Sydney

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 28 August 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Lehane Lecture Series, Lord Sales, Sydney.
• 23–26 September 2019, International Bar Association, Annual Conference, Seoul.
• 21 November 2019, St Thomas Moore Society, Annual Dinner, Parliament House, Sydney.
• 29 November 2019, Law Society of New South Wales, Arbitration, Sydney.
• 4 February 2020, Affinity Intercultural Foundation, Affinity Lecture Series: An Australian View of the World, Sydney.
• 21 February 2020, University of Notre Dame Australia, Inauguration of the Vice Chancellor, St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney.
• 2 March 2020, Macquarie University, Global Alumni Impact Series, Sydney. Sustainability: Building a Resilient Future.

Judge Paul Howard

Professional and other memberships

• LAWASIA
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Queensland Bar Association
• Commonwealth Magistrates Judges Association
• Hellenic Australian Lawyers
• The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Samuel Griffith Society

Judge Susan Purdon-Sully

Professional and other memberships

• Honorary membership of the Queensland Law Society
• International Academy of Family Lawyers
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• Women Lawyers Association of Queensland Inc
• International Association of Women Judges
• Supreme Court of Queensland Library Collection Selection Sub-Committee

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 11–15 September 2019, International Academy of Family Lawyers, European Chapter Meeting, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.

Judge Margaret Cassidy

Professional and other memberships

• Bar Association of Queensland
• Women’s Lawyers Association of Queensland
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• Judicial Conference of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 9–16 September 2019, Continuing Professional Education Conferences, Pan Europe Pacific Legal Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
• 16–26 September 2019, Continuing Professional Education Conferences, Pan Europe Oceania Legal Conference, Lisbon to London.
• 11–13 October 2019, Bundaberg Law Association, Bundaberg Law Association Conference, Lady Elliot Island. Paper presented: ‘Am I a parent’ private sperm donation.
• Other activities: Interview for research project on unrepresented litigants in family law proceedings involving family violence.

Judge Evelyn Bender

Professional and other memberships

• Australian Association of Women Judges
• International Association of Women Judges
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• Judicial Advisory Group on Family Violence
• Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Family Violence Taskforce
• Family Law Information Sharing Protocol Committee
• Law Institute of Victoria, Young Lawyers’ Journal Interview
• Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Bill Steering Committee

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 24 September 2019, Victorian Women Lawyers, Warren Moot, Melbourne.

Judge Anne Demack

Professional and other memberships

• Bar Association of Queensland
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• Family Law Practitioners Association
• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 26 July 2019, Brisbane Bar Association Dinner.
• 30 July 2019, opening of the Law Year Dinner, Rockhampton.
• 31 July 2019, opening of the Law Year Church Service, Rockhampton.
• 5–9 August 2019, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, Plenary, Sydney.
• 18–19 October 2019, Chair/Presenter Central Queensland Law Association and Queensland Law Society Conference, Rockhampton.
• 5 December 2019, Family Law Practitioners Association, Christmas Function.
• 11 December 2019, Mackay Solicitors Christmas Drinks and Mackay Family Pathways, Mackay.

Judge Terry McGuire

Professional and other memberships

• Family Law Practitioners Association of Tasmania

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 13 March 2020, Tasmanian Young Lawyers, Meeting with Judicial Officer, Burnie, Tasmania.

Judge David Dunkley

Professional and other memberships

• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• All scheduled presentation were cancelled due to COVID-19.

Judge Barbara Baker

Professional and other memberships

• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• Family Law Practitioners Association of Tasmania
• Member, AIJA Council

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 23 October 2019, UNCITRAL Coordination Committee for Australia, United Nations Day Lecture 2019, 25 years of Cross Border Insolvency Law Reform 1994–2019 (Chair of Hobart Lecture), Hobart.

Judge Peter Cole OAM

Professional and other memberships

• National Judicial College of Australia
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Law Society of Western Australia
• South Australian Law Society
• Family Law Section Law Council of Australia
• Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia
• Family Law Practitioners Association Queensland
• LawAsia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 5–6 July 2019, National Judicial College of Australia, Effective Judicial Presentations, Sydney.
• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 15–16 August 2019, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Australian Chapter Conference, Sydney, co-chair and presenter.
• 18 September 2019, Law Society of South Australia, Seminar: The Harmon Rule, Adelaide.
• 30 October–2 November 2019, Family Court of Western Australia, Conference, Perth.
• 22–25 January 2020, Law Society Northern Territory, Start at the Top Family Law Conference, Darwin, Chair and coordinator.

Judge Josephine Willis AM

Professional and other memberships

• Australian and International Associations of Women Judges
• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Judicial Council of Australia
• Bar Association of Queensland, Associate Member
• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• Family Law Practitioners Association Queensland
• Life Member, North Queensland Women’s Legal Service
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student Mentor, Far North Queensland Law Association, student mentor program

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–14 July 2019, Federal Circuit Court, NAIDOC week celebrations, Cairns.
• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 6 September 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Justice for Kin Carers Family Law Forum, Cairns, presenter and panel member.
• 18 October 2019, attendance at the Murri Court, Cairns.
• 1 November 2019, Family Law Practitioners Association, FLPA in the Tropics, Cairns, guest speaker and Chair.
• 28 October 2019, AFL Cape York Boys House, Stand Up Against Domestic Violence and High Tea Function, Cairns, guest speaker.
• 11 September 2019, Family Law Practitioners Association, Through their Eyes, Impact of Coercive and Controlling Abuse on Children, webinar.
• 20 January 2020, Judge Willis AM and Chair of Family Law Practitioners Association, Practitioners New to Family Law, Cairns.
• 26 February 2020, Queensland Government, Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnership, Queensland Government, Kupai Omasker Guest Advisor, Brisbane.
• 23 March 2020, Federal Court of Australia, Judicial Resilience Training, via Microsoft Teams.

Judge Leanne Turner

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 22–24 January 2020, Law Society Northern Territory, 2020 Start at the Top Family Law Conference, Darwin. Paper presented: Ethics Drugs and the whole damn thing.

Judge Matthew Myers AM

Professional and other memberships

• Law Society of New South Wales
• New South Wales Bar Association
• Adjunct Professor Faculty of Law University of New South Wales
• PhD Supervision Panel Australian National University
• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia
• National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
• Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council
• New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council
• Fellow Australian Academy of Law
• Board Member, Family Relationships Services Australia
• Royal Australian Air Force Specialist Reserve

Judge Alexandra Harland

Professional and other memberships

• Member, governing council, Judicial Conference of Australia
• Board Member, Australian Chapter, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• President Elect, Australian Chapter, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• International Committee, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• International Women Judges Association
• Australian Women Judges Association
• International Family Judges Association
• Judicial Conference Australia
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia
• Law Society of New South Wales (Honorary Judicial Member)
• Women’s Lawyers Northern Territory (Honorary Judicial Member)
• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated
• National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (United States of America)
• International Committee, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (United States of America)

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 3–5 July 2019, International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice, International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice Conference, London.
• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney. Papers presented: General principles regarding writing judgments; and LGBTIQ Issues of Relevance.
• 16 August 2019, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Australian Chapter Conference, Sydney, Plenary Chair. Presented: Identity Theft: How I discovered my secret identity; and Superhero or supervillain? Is there room for dual roles of therapy and assessment in family law?
• 1 October 2019, University of Technology Sydney, Research Project on Self-Represented Litigants in family law matters involving family violence, via telephone.
• 12 October 2019, Judicial Conference of Australia, Annual General Meeting and Governing Council’s Meeting, Sydney.
• 27 October 2019, TOMMY, Panel Member Launch of ‘Tommy’ with Chief Justice Alstergren and others, Como Theatre South Yarra.
• 19 November 2019, United National Convention on the Right of the Child, recent Trends and Developments in Japanese Family Law, Melbourne.
• 13 March 2020, Victoria Legal Aid, National ICL Training, Melbourne.
• 14 March 2020, Judicial Conference of Australia, Governing Council’s Meeting, Sydney.
• 28 April 2020, The Victorian Bar Webinar: In conversation with His Honour, William Alstergren and Geoffrey Dickson QC, via videoconference.
• 12 May 2020, University of Cambridge, Joint seminar - Cambridge Reproduction, and Cambridge Socio-Legal Group: The ‘Chimera’ of Parenthood, via Zoom.
• 13 June 2020, Judicial Conference of Australia, Governing Council’s Meeting, via Microsoft Teams.

Judge Salvatore Vasta

Professional and other memberships

• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Bar Association of Queensland – judicial member
• Medico-Legal Society of Queensland
• International Association of Prosecutors – honorary Member and Member of the IAP Senate

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 26–28 August 2019, Queensland Police Service, Task Force Argos, Youth, Technology and Virtual Communities, Gold Coast.

Judge Tony Young

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 11 November 2019, Alice Springs Family Law Pathways, ‘Talking about parenting’.

Judge Steven Middleton

Professional and other memberships

• North Queensland Legal Association
• Queensland Law Society
• Family Law Practitioners’ Association of Queensland
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• Judicial Conference of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 16 August 2019, Queensland Law Society, Continuing Professional Development, CPD Road Show, Hervey Bay. Paper presented: Arbitration.
• 23 August 2019, Queensland Young Lawyers, Confidence in the Courtroom workshop, Brisbane.
• 29 August 2019, Sunshine Coast Family Law Pathways, Network Presentation, Maroochydore. Paper presented: Property settlements.

Judge Timothy Heffernan

Professional and other memberships

• National Judicial College of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 6–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 18 September 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Judicial Education Session – Fair Work Contraventions – Presented with Chris Jessup QC, Melbourne via Skype.
• 6 November 2019, South Australian Bar Association, Bar Readers Course, Adelaide.
• 10 January 2020, South Australian Legal Services Commission, Judicial Review Advocacy Training Event, Adelaide.
• 6 March 2020, South Australian Law Society, ‘Current Issues in the Interaction Between Criminal Law and Family Law’, Adelaide.

Judge Elizabeth Boyle

Professional and other memberships

• New South Wales Bar Association
• National Judicial College of Australia
• Australian Association of Women Judges

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 3–7 July 2019, Learned Friends of Penang, Family Law Conference, Penang, Malaysia.
• 18 November 2019, Legal Aid New South Wales, National Independent Children’s Lawyer training workshop, Sydney.

Judge Brana Obradovic

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• New South Wales Bar Association
• International Bar Association
• Women Lawyers’ Association
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 22–27 October 2019, International Bar Association, Annual Conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
• 10 October 2019, Western Sydney Law Students’ Association, ‘A Night in Chambers’, New South Wales Law Society, Sydney.
• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.

Judge Amanda Tonkin

Professional and other memberships

• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australian Capital Territory Bar Association
• New South Wales Bar Association
• Queensland Bar Association

Judge Patrizia Mercuri

Professional and other memberships

• National Judicial College of Australia
• International Association of Women Judges
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Women Lawyers’ Association of New South Wales
• Law Institute of Victoria
• Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 27 February 2020, Albury Wodonga Family Law Pathways, Network Breakfast, Upper Murray Family Care, Wodonga. Presented: When ‘no contact’ orders are appropriate – considering family violence and the balance between prioritising children’s safety and encouraging a meaningful relationship between children and their parents.
• 28 February 2020, Law Institute of Victoria, North East Law Association Conference, Albury/Wodonga. Presented: Direct from the bench – What Judges want to hear when conducting an interim hearing.
• 20 April 2020, Federal Circuit Court of Australia, eCeremonial Sitting of Judge Judith Small AM, via Microsoft Teams.

Judge Jane Costigan

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7 March 2020, Toongabbie Legal Conference, Family Law Seminar, Toongabbie Legal Centre. Presented: A Day in the life of a Judge.

Judge Gregory Egan

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Associate Member of the Bar Association of Queensland
• Member of the United Service Club Queensland
• Foundation Member of the Gallery of Modern Art
• Member of the Disciplinary Appeals Panel for Queensland Cricket

Judge Christopher Kendall

Professional and other memberships

• West Australian Bar Association
• Editorial Board, Intellectual Property Forum, The Journal of the Intellectual Property Society Australia and New Zealand

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 3 July 2019, Consul General of the United States of America, Reception for the 243rd Anniversary of the Independence of the United States of America, Perth.
• 6–8 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 26 September 2019, Consul General of the United States of America, Welcome Reception for the United States Consul General Mr David Gainer, Perth.
• 12 October 2019, Western Australian Government, Pride, Parliament House, Perth.
• 30 October 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Migration Law Roundtable, Perth.
• 19 November 2019, College of Law, End of Year Awards, Perth, keynote speaker.
• 11 March 2020, Family Court of Western Australia, Judges’ drinks, Perth.

Judge Caroline Kirton

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Hellenic Australian Lawyers Association

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 11–12 July 2019, Australian Bar Association, 2019 Biennial International conference, Singapore. Paper presented: Convergence.
• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• 29 August 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Seminar, The Boundaries of Refugee Protection: A Comparative View, University of Melbourne.
• 3 September 2019, Federal Circuit Court Judicial Education Seminar, Reforming Migration Appeals in the UK: Deterring Abuse and Encouraging Efficiency, Melbourne.
• 4 September 2019, Federal Court of Australia, Judicial Seminar, Human Rights and Brexit, Melbourne.
• 15–19 September 2019, International Association of Judges, 62nd Annual Meeting, Nur-Slatan, Kazakhstan.
• 23 October 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Judicial Education Seminar, Appeals: The processes, Observations and Hints, Melbourne.
• 31 October 2019, Family Court, Federal Circuit Court and Law Institute of Victoria, Panel Discussion and Networking Event, Melbourne.
• 14 November 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Judicial Education Seminar, Researching Judicial Attitudes and Experiences, Melbourne.
• 19 November 2019, Family Court and Federal Circuit Court, United National Convention on the Right of the Child, recent Trends and Developments in Japanese Family Law, Melbourne.
• 18 May 2020, International Association of Judges, Asian, North American and Oceanian Group meeting, Zoom meeting.

Judge Julia Baird

Professional and other memberships

• New South Wales Bar Association, Associate member
• Women Lawyers’ Association of New South Wales
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand
• Australian Association of Women Judges
• Copyright Society of Australia

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 6–8 September 2019, Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, 33rd IPSANZ Conference 2019, Noosa Heads, Queensland. Pre-conference session: An update on the IP jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
• 14 October 2019, University of Melbourne, Francis Gurry Lecture on Intellectual Property, Sydney.
• 22–23 October 2019, Australian Copyright Council and Copyright Society of Australia, 19th Biennial Copyright Law and Practice Symposium, Sydney.
• 28 October 2019, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Meeting with ABC Legal Team, Sydney.
• 28–29 November 2019, Federal Court of Australia/Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, Innovation and Intellectual Property Conference, Melbourne.
• 4 December 2019, Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, IPSANZ End of Year Event, Behind the Scenes with Judge Baird, Melbourne.

Judge Bruce Smith

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Australian Chapter

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 17 August 2019, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Sydney.
• 22 August 2019, Legal Aid Commission of NSW, Independent Children’s Lawyer Conference, Sydney. Presented: Expert Evidence.
• 26 October 2019, Toongabbie Legal Centre Practical Advocacy Training, Parramatta.
• 8 February 2020, Family Law Section, Intensive, Sydney.
• 16 February 2020, NSW Young Lawyer, Family Law ‘Conference in the Court Room’ Training, Sydney.
• 7 March 2020, Toongabbie Legal Centre, Family Law Seminar. Presented: An introduction to Expert Evidence.

Judge Karl Blake

Professional and other memberships

• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australia Labour Law Association

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 29 November 2019, Family Law Bar Association, Family Law Bar Association end of year dinner, Melbourne.
• 21 November 2019, Industrial Bar Association, annual dinner, Melbourne.
• 10–15 November 2019, National Judicial College of Australia, National Judicial Orientation Program, Gold Coast.
• 31 October 2019, Industrial Bar Association, Keep an eye on the trial, Practical measures to ensure your case runs smoothly in court, Melbourne. Panel discussion with Paul O’Grady QC, Justice O’Callaghan, Justice Richards and Judge Blake.

Judge Douglas Humphreys OAM

Professional and other memberships

• LAWASIA
• ARES legal Corps
• Sydney Law Society
• Regional Law Society
• Judicial Conference of Australia
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
• Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 17 October 2019, Parramatta District Law Society, dinner, Parramatta.
• 1–8 November 2019, LawAsia, Conference, Hong Kong.
• 11–15 November 2019, National Judicial College of Australia, New Judge’s Conference, Gold Coast.
• 27 November 2019, CDS Seminar Presentation, webinar.
• 5 December 2019, Law Society of New South Wales, Judicial Cocktail Reception, Sydney.
• December 2019, ADF War Memorial Presentation, Sydney.
• 5 February 2020, Law Society of NSW, Opening of Law Term Dinner, Sydney.
• 6 February 2020, Muslim Legal Network, New South Wales, Opening of Law Term Punchbowl Mosque, Punchbowl.
• 21 February 2020, Australian Defence Force, Legal Ethics Committee Annual Meeting, Military Law Centre, Victoria Barracks Sydney.
• 28 February 2020, Greater Western Family Law, Greater Western family Law Annual Dinner, Sydney.
• 5 March 2020, Bankstown and District Law Society, Bankstown and District Law Society Conference, Bankstown. Presented: Tips in Advocacy.

Judge Monica Neville

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 10 September 2019, New South Wales Young Lawyers, Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Intervention in Family Law Proceedings by the Department of Family Communities and Justice, Parramatta.
• 17 October 2019, University of Technology Sydney, Guest speaker to Family Law Students, Sydney.
• 21 October 2019, LEAP Program, Speaking with female high school students, Sydney.
• November 2019, Toongabbie Legal Centre, Family and Domestic violence explained: what is it and how does it intersect with family law, Toongabbie Legal Centre.
• 21 November 2019, Wollongong Family Law Practitioners, Chair, Wollongong Court Users Forum, Wollongong.
• 28 November 2019, LawSense, Chair and keynote address for 4th Annual law for mental health practitioners New South Wales Conference, Sydney.
• 15 February 2020, New South Wales Young Lawyers Family Law committee, Confidence in the Courtroom Program, Sydney.
• 8 March 2020, New South Wales Bar Association, 2020 Regional Conference Series, Orange Continuing Professional Development Conference, Family Law: recent cases to note, Orange, NSW.

Judge Anna Boymal

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 20 September 2019, Victoria Legal Aid, Marvel Stadium Melbourne, Family Law Forum, Session 2A: Family Law practical: From first instructions to first court date.

Judge Guy Andrew

Professional and other memberships

• North Queensland Bar Association
• Townsville District Law Association
• Family Law Practitioners Association Queensland

Judge Penelope Kari

Professional and other memberships

• Law Society of South Australia
• Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia
• Bar Readers, South Australian Bar Association

Conferences and events attended during the year

• 7–9 August 2019, Federal Circuit Court, Annual Judges’ Plenary, Sydney.
• August 2019, South Australian Bar Association, annual dinner, Adelaide.
• 23 August 2019, Women’s Legal Service of South Australia, Warm up and Serve, Adelaide.
• 28 August 2019, Law Society of South Australia, Judgements of Interest covering Family, Civil and Criminal, Adelaide.
• 3 September 2019, Law Society of South Australia, Young Lawyers Premium Dinner, Adelaide.
• 25 October 2019, Law Society of South Australia, Family Law Dinner with Judges, Adelaide.
• 31 October 2019, Women’s Lawyers Association, ‘Breaking the Glass Ceiling’, Adelaide.
• 10–15 November 2019, National Judicial College of Australia, National Judicial Orientation Program, Gold Coast.
• 22–23 February 2020, South Australian Bar Association, Annual Bar Conference, Barossa Valley, South Australia.

Appendix 8 Contact details

Chambers of the Chief Judge

Chief Judge Will Alstergren
GPO Box 9991
Melbourne VIC 3001

Office of the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar

David Pringle
GPO Box 9991
Melbourne VIC 3001

National Enquiry Centre

The National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all family law telephone and email enquiries for Federal Circuit Court and Family Court matters. The NEC provides information and procedural advice, forms and brochures, and referrals to community and support services. NEC staff cannot provide legal advice.

Open from 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday

PO Box 9991
Parramatta NSW 2124

Phone: 1300 352 000

International: +61 2 8892 8590

TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls contact 1300 555 727

Website

www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au

www.comcourts.gov.au (Commonwealth Courts Portal)

Email

General federal law enquiries: customer.service@federalcircuitcourt.gov.au

Family law enquiries: enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au

Commonwealth Courts Portal: support@comcourts.gov.au

Communication enquiries: communication@familylawcourts.gov.au

Social media

Twitter:

www.twitter.com/fedcctcourtAU

YouTube:

www.youtube.com/user/federalcircuitcourt

Family law registries

* These registries share counter services with the Federal Court of Australia

Location	Address
Australian Capital Territory
Canberra*	Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2600
New South Wales
Albury	463 Kiewa Street (L1) Albury NSW 2640
Dubbo	Cnr Macquarie and Wingewarra Streets Dubbo NSW 2830
Lismore	Westlawn Building (L2) 29–31 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480
Newcastle	61 Bolton Street Newcastle NSW 2300
Parramatta	Garfield Barwick Commonwealth Law Courts 1–3 George Street Parramatta NSW 2123
Sydney	Lionel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts 97–99 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000
Wollongong	43 Burelli Street (L1) Wollongong NSW 2500
Northern Territory
Darwin*	Supreme Court Building State Square Darwin NT 0800
Queensland
Brisbane	Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts 119 North Quay, Cnr North Quay and Tank Street Brisbane QLD 4000
Cairns	Commonwealth Government Centre (L3 & 4) 104 Grafton Street Cairns QLD 4870
Rockhampton	Virgil Power Building (GF) 46 East Street, Cnr Fitzroy Street Rockhampton QLD 4700
Townsville	Commonwealth Centre (L2) 143 Walker Street Townsville QLD 4810
South Australia
Adelaide	Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000
Tasmania
Hobart*	Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000
Launceston	ANZ Building (L3) Cnr Brisbane and George Streets Launceston TAS 7250
Victoria
Dandenong	53–55 Robinson Street Dandenong VIC 3175
Melbourne	Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000

General federal law registries

All enquiries should be directed to the relevant registry. Contact details follow.

TTY/voice calls: Contact the National Relay Service on 133 677 or for Speak and Listen calls contact 1300 555 727.

Location	Address	Contact details
Australian Capital Territory
Canberra	Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Courts Cnr University Avenue and Childers Street Canberra ACT 2601	Ph: (02) 6267 0566 Fax: (02) 6267 0625 E: actman@fedcourt.gov.au
New South Wales
Sydney	Law Courts Building (L17) Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000	Ph: (02) 9230 8567 Fax: (02) 9230 8295 E: nswdr@fedcourt.gov.au
Northern Territory
Darwin	Supreme Court Building (L3) State Square Darwin NT 0800	Ph: (08) 8941 2333 Fax: (08) 8941 4941 E: ntreg@fedcourt.gov.au
Queensland
Brisbane	Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts (L6) 119 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000	Ph: (07) 3248 1100 Fax: (07) 3248 1260 E: qldreg@fedcourt.gov.au
South Australia
Adelaide	Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts (L5) 3 Angas Street Adelaide SA 5000	Ph: (08) 8219 1000 Fax: (08) 8219 1001 E: sareg@fedcourt.gov.au
Tasmania
Hobart	Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Courts 39–41 Davey Street Hobart TAS 7000	Ph: (03) 6232 1715 Fax: (03) 6232 1701 E: tasreg@fedcourt.gov.au
Victoria
Melbourne	Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Courts 305 William Street Melbourne VIC 3000	Ph: (03) 8600 3333 Fax: (03) 8600 3351 E: vicreg@fedcourt.gov.au
Western Australia
Perth	Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Courts 1 Victoria Avenue Perth WA 6000	Ph: (08) 9268 7100 Fax: (08) 9268 7208 E: waregistry@fedcourt.gov.au

Appendix 9 Information required by other legislation

Table A9.1: Information required by other legislation

Legislation	Page reference
Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Act 2016	i, 12, 74
Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Complaints) Act 2012	55
Family Law Act 1975	12, 13, 35, 36, 37, 54, 55, 57, 76, 84
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999	i, xi, 11, 18, 52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 84, 117
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976	55, 117
Freedom of Information Act 1982	55, 56, 83, 84
Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012	55
Privacy Act 1988	16, 84
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013	i, 59, 60, 66, 73, 93, 117
Public Service Act 1999	i, 59, 60, 74, 120