Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2022] FedCFamC2G 950

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC2G 950

File number(s): PEG 52 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV

Date of judgment: 11 November 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of hearing dates – reasons for extension being medical conditions, language and subpoena of two witnesses no longer working for the Respondent – provision of transcript at no cost

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 190

Cases cited: Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2G 648

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 8

Date of last submission/s: 11 November 2022

Date of hearing: 11 November 2022

Place: Perth

Applicant: In person by phone via CISCO Webex

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R French

Solicitor for the Respondent: Barry Nilsson Lawyers
ORDERS

PEG 52 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
STEPHANE ARMET

Applicant

AND:
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE LUCEV

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Respondent have leave to file and serve an amended outline of submissions by 4.00pm on 14 November 2022.
2.In relation to the Applicant’s Application in a Proceeding filed 11 October 2022:
(a)order 8 of the Court’s orders of 20 May 2022 be set aside;
(b)the matter now be listed for hearing at 9am on 17, 20 and 21 February 2023 with daily sitting hours of 9.00am – 1.00pm and 2.00pm – 5.30pm;
(c)otherwise the Applicant’s Application in a Proceeding be dismissed.

3.Costs, if any, be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)
JUDGE LUCEV

On 11 October 2022 the applicant Mr Stephane Armet (“Mr Armet”) filed an Application in a Proceeding (“Application”) seeking orders:
(a)to extend the listed sitting days for this matter from two days to four days; and
(b)for the provision of a transcript free of charge at the end of the hearing, presently listed for 20 February 2023 and 21 February 2023 (“Final Hearing”).
At the hearing of the Application today there also arose the matter of some very minor amendments to the Outline of Submissions which had been filed by the respondent (“CFC Consolidated”) on 7 November 2022. The Court will make an order that CFC Consolidated have leave to file and serve an amended outline of submissions by 4 pm on 14 November 2022.
As to the extension of the Final Hearing dates, Mr Armet relies in particular…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FedCFamC2G 950
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2, was asked to consider an application by Stephane Armet against CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd. The applicant sought an extension of the hearing dates for the final hearing of the matter and the provision of a transcript free of charge. The application arose from the listing of the case for a two-day hearing, which the applicant considered insufficient due to the volume of facts and evidence, the medical conditions of the applicant, his limited English proficiency, and the fact that two witnesses for the respondent were to be called under subpoena without prior affidavits.

The court had to determine whether the hearing dates should be extended and whether the applicant was entitled to a free transcript. The court considered the potential difficulties the applicant faced due to the lack of prior affidavits for the subpoenaed witnesses and the need for the applicant to cross-examine them on relevant issues. The court was also concerned about the efficient and timely disposal of matters in line with the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions. The court noted that extending the hearing dates would prevent a split in the hearing and ensure the matter was resolved in a timely manner.

The court granted the application for an extension of the hearing dates from two days to three days, with adjusted sitting hours, to accommodate the volume of evidence and facts in the case. The court also confirmed that the applicant must either pay for the transcript or wait for the Court's copy to become available after the final hearing. The court dismissed the application for the provision of a transcript free of charge.

In summary, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2, granted the applicant's request for an extension of the hearing dates but denied the request for a free transcript. The court's decision aimed to ensure the efficient and timely resolution of the matter while considering the applicant's circumstances.

Orders