It could be said that there is a tremendous amount of time wasted on proceedings that should never have been filed and/or were doomed to failure from the outset. For the most part this seems to be from self-represented litigants, many of whom simply can’t afford the ongoing costs of litigation.
One such case was that of Conner & Conner (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 223, an Appeal from a decision of a Division 1 Judge. The Appellant Mather was attempting to appeal from the following procedural orders made by the trial Judge on
24 and 25 July 2025:
- The mother shall attend for an interview on 6 August 2025 (as directed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer) with the psychiatric report writer (Dr. [C]) and participate fully as requested by the psychiatric report writer.
- Dr [C] of [D Health Service] is permitted to use any psychologist she chooses to assist her in the preparation of the psychiatric report of the parties and such psychologist is permitted to assist with carrying out psychometric testing of the parties (including psychometric testing of the mother).
- In the event that the mother does not comply with Order 9 herein the Court shall consider proceeding with the matter on an undefended basis.
The mother had already appealed from Orders made on 20 May 2025 to attend for independent psychiatric examination; such appeal having been dismissed. After filing a Notice of Appeal from the subsequent July 2025 Orders the mother filed, or attempted to file, two further amended Notices of Appeal and then, on the eve of the appeal hearing, an Application in an Appeal seeking to further amend the notice of Appeal, file further evidence and adjourn the appeal hearing. Both the father and the ICL did not oppose the filing of the further evidence, rendering the application for an adjournment futile.
The gist of the mother’s grounds of appeal were that the report of Dr [C] ought not be admitted into evidence and that instead she ought to be able to rely on reports from her own treating medical practitioners.
None of these Orders constituted a Judgment and therefore Christie, Strum & Brasch JJ opined that no appeal competently lies from it[1]. Further, even if the appeal had not been incompetent, these Orders simply provided a date to attend upon Dr [C], the mother’s appeal from the appointment of Dr [C] having already been dismissed[2].
Both parties were self-represented litigants with the ICL being the only legal practitioner in respect of whom an Order for costs was made against the appellant mother.
[1] Conner & Conner (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 223 at [2]
[2] At [20].