Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Bowen & Bowen (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 11
File number(s): WOC 1194 of 2019 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 13 January 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION – Where the second applicant applies to give evidence at final hearing via electronic means – Where the second applicant is elderly and in poor health. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act (2021) (Cth), s 67
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), rr 1.06, 15.15, 15.16.
Cases cited: Wei v Xia (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 189. Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 13 January 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicants: Mr Richardson Solicitor for the Applicants: Meehans Solicitors Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Mitchell, Hansons Lawyers ORDERS
WOC 1194 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS BOWEN
First Applicant
MR HUNT
Second Applicant
ESTATE OF MS HUNT
Third Applicant
AND: MR BOWEN
Respondent
order made by:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 January 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Second Applicant be permitted to attend Court and give evidence by electronic communication from his home.
2.By no later than 12.00 pm on 18 January 2023, the respondent husband provide an electronic court book, paginated and bookmarked in PDF format, including copies of all documents which it is intended may be shown to the second applicant during cross examination.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bowen & Bowen has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHRISTIE J:
This is an application to give evidence by way of electronic communication. The application is made on behalf of the second applicant, Mr Hunt. The proceedings are listed for final hearing before me commencing Wednesday, 18 January 2023. Mr Hunt is the father of the first applicant, Ms Bowen, the wife in the proceedings. Mr Bowen is the respondent husband in the proceedings.
The husband initially opposed the application for the wife’s father to attend via electronic means. The matter is listed for determination of competing final applications for property adjustment as between the husband and wife. The second applicant is a party…
Continue reading Bowen & Bowen (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bowen & Bowen (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 11
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC1F 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal framework provided by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. It considered the provisions of rules 15.15 and 15.16, which govern the process for requesting and granting permission for electronic attendance and evidence. The court noted the observations of his Honour Justice Harper in Wei v Xia (No 2) and assessed whether the second applicant had complied with the necessary procedural requirements. The court also took into account the second applicant's medical evidence, including his declining vision and the need to surrender his driver’s licence.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found that the second applicant's health issues warranted electronic attendance. The court was satisfied that the formal requirements of the Rules had been met, and both parties were entitled to procedural fairness. The court acknowledged that the second applicant's ability to participate in the proceedings could be jeopardised by travel to the solicitor’s office but also considered the potential undermining of the cross-examination process if the second applicant attended from home. Ultimately, the court determined that the second applicant should attend from his home with the assistance of his solicitor, balancing the need for procedural fairness with the practical considerations of the second applicant’s health.
The court ordered that the second applicant may attend and give evidence from his home via electronic communication, with the assistance of his solicitor. This decision was based on the evidence of the second applicant's health issues and the need to ensure his ability to participate in the proceedings without undue risk. The court's order aimed to provide a fair and efficient resolution of the matter while accommodating the second applicant's medical circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”) govern the receipt of electronic evidence. Rule 15.15(1) read with r 1.06 of the Rules provide for a party attending and having their evidence received by electronic communication. Counsel for the second applicant and the solicitor for the respondent both refer to the observations of his Honour Justice Harper in Wei v Xia (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 189. Rule 15.16(3) sets out in comprehensive terms what must be addressed by a party requesting permission to attend or give evidence by electronic means. Rule 15.16(6) lists, in a non‑exhaustive manner, the matters which the Court may take into account when considering a request. consideration Turning then to my consideration of this matter. I am satisfied there has been compliance with the formal parts of the Rules. Each party must be entitled to procedural fairness and to a mechanism by which he or she can participate. Sometimes the needs of different parties will be different. There is no evidence disputing the proposition that the second applicant is physically unwell. Since the application and supporting evidence was filed, the husband concedes that the second applicant should not be required to physically attend court. This concession effectively determines the application for electronic communication. What remains then are the circumstances in which that should occur. The applicant says it should take place with Mr Hunt attending from his home where he has a special reclining chair. He will have the assistance of his solicitor. The respondent says the second applicant should participate from his solicitor’s office where he can more easily be shown documents. This is probably a distinction without too much of a difference. I accept there is scant medical evidence about the chair itself but the second applicant says he spends most of his time in that chair (at [14] of his affidavit). I accept there is also little medical evidence to support a deterioration in Mr Hunt’s health but I accept that his vision has declined and there is affidavit evidence to that effect and he has surrendered his driver licence. I take into account the provisions of s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act (2021) (Cth) and the requirement for just and efficient disposal of matters. The most significant issue in my view is the possibility that the second applicant’s ability to participate in the proceedings would be jeopardised by his travel to the solicitor’s office and the circumstances in the new location. I must balance that against a concern that the process of cross-examination will be undermined by the use of audio-visual communication. The lawyers who act for the husband express concern in their letter of 30 November 2022 (exhibit B) that there would likely be tenders which he would now need to be cross-examined about and accordingly, in person attendance was said, at that stage, to be required. They now say the process will be enhanced by being in the solicitor’s office.