Briggs & Briggs (No 2)
[2024] FedCFamC2F 258
•6 March 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Briggs & Briggs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 258
File number(s): BRC 10366 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON Date of judgment: 6 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING –procedural matters – no case to answer application by the respondent – application opposed – two counts dismissed on no case to answer basis – balance of contravention applications to proceed – legal costs disproportionate to issues in dispute. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZN, 70NAF
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 189
Cases cited: A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported)
Attreed & Attreed [1980] FamCA 81
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717
Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112
Dobbs & Dobbs (2021) FLC 94-021
Fierro & Fierro (No 7) [2023] FedCFamC1A 24
Jackson & Fordham (1995) FLC 92-561
Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55
May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38
Meese & Meese (No 3) [2018] FamCA 807
Nieuwstraten & Nieuwstraten [1987] FamCA 11
Perkins & Perkins [1979] FamCA 4
Prentice v Cummins (No 5) [2002] FCA 1503
Protean (Holdings) Ltd. v American Home Assurance Co [1985] VicRp 18
Rasomen Pty. Ltd. v Shell Co of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 216
Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59
Stevenson & Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; and
Zanetti & Hill [1962] HCA 62Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 71 Date of hearing: 29 January 2024 Date of last submissions: The Applicant’s Written Submissions filed 5 February 2024 and the Respondent’s Written Submissions in Reply filed 7 February 2024 Place: Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Shoebridge Solicitor for the Applicant: Murdoch Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Linklater-Steele Solicitor for the Respondent: Hopgood Ganim Lawyers ORDERS
BRC 10366 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BRIGGS
Applicant
AND: MS BRIGGS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE DICKSON
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That Count 1 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 as it relates to an alleged contravention in 2022 is dismissed.
2.That Count 3 of the Applicant Father's Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 as it relates to an alleged contravention on 9 December 2022 is dismissed.
3.That the Respondent Mother’s oral application of no case to answer for Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Applicant Father’s Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 is dismissed.
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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE DICKSON:
INTRODUCTION
This is the second Judgment to be delivered by the Court in these proceedings which involve Applications for Contravention filed by the Applicant Father, Mr Briggs (‘the father’) on 2 September 2022 and 21 February 2023 respectively alleging various breaches of a final parenting order made 18 March 2021 (‘the final consent orders’) by the Respondent Mother, Ms Briggs (‘the mother’).
On 9 August 2023, the Court dismissed the mother’s oral application to summarily dismiss the Contravention Applications. On that day, Counts 11 and 15 of the Application filed on 21 February 2023 were dismissed by consent and Count 21 of the same application was dismissed by the Court of its own motion.
On 10 August 2023, the Court heard evidence from the father in relation to the remaining counts. The father was vigorously cross examined by the mother’s counsel. In a number of respects, his evidence was unsatisfactory which I will come to in these Reasons.
At the conclusion of the father’s case, the mother’s counsel foreshadowed that an application of ‘no case to answer’ would be made at the recommencement of the Trial. The oral application was opposed by the father. Orders were made for the filing of written submissions by both parties and the Trial adjourned part-heard to 29 January 2024.
Regrettably, the late filing of written submissions by the mother’s counsel resulted in the Court hearing only from the mother on the no case application when the Trial resumed. The Notations to the Order made 29 January 2024 records the sensible accommodation reached by counsel to address this issue and Judgment on the no case application was reserved.
These are the Court’s Reasons arising from the mother’s oral application of no case to answer.
BACKGROUND
The parties are the parents of three children, namely X born in 2009, Y born in 2011 and Z born in 2013 (‘the children’).
The children are now aged 14 years, almost 13 years and 11 years respectively.
On 18 March 2021, the parties entered into the final consent orders. It is from these final consent orders that the father now alleges that the mother has contravened various provisions without reasonable excuse.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AT THE NO CASE TO ANSWER HEARING
The mother relies upon the following the documents:
(1)Applications for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 and 21 February 2023;
(2)Affidavits of the father filed 2 September 2022 and 21 February 2023;
(3)Outline of Case Document filed by the father on 8 August 2023;
(4)Transcript of hearings dated 9 and 10 August 2023;
(5)Exhibits M1 to M8 tendered on 10 August 2023;
(6)Outline of Submissions No Case to Answer filed 26 January 2024; and
(7)Reply to the father’s Response Submissions filed 7 February 2024.
Whilst not specifically referring to specific documents relied upon the father has filed the following documents:
(1)Written Submissions of the father in response to the mother’s no case to answer application filed 5 February 2024; and
(2)Outline of Case Document filed 8 August 2023.
It is evident from reading the submissions filed by counsel that there is a controversy at this juncture of the proceedings as to whether or not the Court should have regard to the affidavits filed by the mother on 15 February 2023 and 26 July 2023 (‘the mother’s affidavits’).
The mother is yet to open her case and has not yet given evidence. As these proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the mother has a right to maintain her silence and to put the father to proof. The onus is on the father at this stage of the proceedings. Once a prima facie case has been established, the tactical onus then falls to the mother.
The mother’s counsel has made it clear from the start of the Trial, that the mother does not rely on her affidavits filed and will make an informed decision upon receipt of advice at the appropriate time as to whether or not she intends to do so.
I agree with the written submissions by counsel for the mother that the first affidavit filed on 15 February 2023 was at a point in time when the mother was unrepresented. I am not prepared to assume that the mother was aware of the legal complexities arising from contravention applications and her inherent right to say nothing until the appropriate time. True it is that the affidavit filed on 26 July 2023 was executed when the mother was represented by solicitors. That does not change to my mind the well-established legal principle that the onus to prove each and every count at first instance falls to the Applicant, in this case the father.
For the purposes of these Reasons, I wish to record that I have not had regard to the mother’s affidavits and correspondingly, I have not relied upon any of the paragraphs in the father’s Written Submissions which refer to them.
At this stage of the Trial, the application of no case to answer will rise or fall on the father’s evidence alone.
ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS
The counts which are the subject of an oral application of no case to answer by the mother are as follows:
(1)Count 1 of the Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 – alleged breach of the final consent order on 5 August 2022;
(2)Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 – alleged breach of the final consent order on 6, 8, 18, 20 and 22 December 2022; 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 26, 28, 30 January 2023 and 1 February 2023; and
(3)Count 3 of the Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 – alleged breach of the final consent order on 9 December 2022.
ORAL APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ALL ‘TIME’ ORDERS
Towards the conclusion of the hearing on 29 January 2024, the mother’s counsel made submissions to the effect that the Court should consider dismissing all of the counts in relation to face-to-face time spending.
This issue is addressed in paragraphs 87 to 91 of the Written Submissions filed by the father on 5 February 2024.
Given the manner in which this issue was raised with the Court in effectively what was a ‘thought bubble’ by counsel during the final moments of his oral address, the Court declines to consider this course of action and will focus on determining the counts which were the subject of formal application.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
When determining an application of no case to answer, the Court is to consider whether the Applicant has presented a prima facie case.[1] The Court must take the applicant’s evidence at its highest, including drawing any available inferences in favour of the Applicant.[2] If, taken at its highest and with the drawing of such inferences, the evidence is capable of establishing the contravention alleged, then there is a case to answer. The test to be applied is whether the Court could (not would) find for the applicant on the basis of the evidence adduced.[3]
[1] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [16]; May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38.
[2] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported) [16]; Meese & Meese (No 3) [2018] FamCA 807, [1]; Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717; Prentice v Cummins (No 5) [2002] FCA 1503; Protean (Holdings) Ltd. v American Home Assurance Co [1985] VicRp 18.
[3] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [16]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717; Rasomen Pty. Ltd. v Shell Co of Australia (1997) 75 FCR 216; May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; Zanetti & Hill [1962] HCA 62; Fierro & Fierro (No 7) [2023] FedCFamC1A 24.
A prima facie case has been described as a case with “a reasonable probability of that claim being successful in some measure.”[4]
[4] Perkins& Perkins [1979] FamCA 4.
While the relevant authorities establish that there are a number of circumstances where a ‘no case to answer’ submission may be advanced, for the case at hand the mother argues that the evidence adduced by the father could not support the counts complained of.
Section 69ZN of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) sets out a number of principles for conducting child-related proceedings. One of those principles includes that proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and legal technicality as possible. Section 189 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) provides that the proceedings in this Court are not invalidated by formal defect or irregularity unless the Court is of the opinion that substantial injustice has been caused by the defect or irregularity and the injustice cannot be remedied by an order of the Court.[5]
[5] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [17].
These considerations must be weighed against the fact that contravention proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature,[6] that a contravention must be precisely stated and proved,[7] and that procedural requirements should be strictly complied with and not lightly departed from.[8] In particular, prejudice to the Respondent must be avoided.[9]
[6] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [18], Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112; Jackson & Fordham (1995) FLC 92-561; Dobbs & Dobbs (2021) FLC 94-021; Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55.
[7] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [18]; Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59; Attreed & Attreed [1980] FamCA 81; Stevenson & Hughes [1993] FamCA 14.
[8] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [18]; Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59; Nieuwstraten & Nieuwstraten [1987] FamCA 11; Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112.
[9] A & H [2024] FedCFamC2F 192 (Unreported), [18]; Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112.
The mother is not required to file any evidence until such time as a prima facie case has been established and even then is not obliged to file an affidavit unless she elects to do so.
The standard of proof to be applied is the civil standard.[10]
[10] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 70NAF(1).
Alleged Contravention in 2022 – Count 1 of Application filed 2 September 2022
Paragraph 6 of the final consent orders provides that unless otherwise agreed from the commencement of Term 1 2022 during school terms, the children are to spend time with the father each alternate week for five consecutive nights from after school Friday until the commencement of school on Wednesday morning.
This paragraph needs to be read in light of Notation A to the final consent orders which states:
A. In the event that the children are not in the care of a parent on the parent’s birthday, the parent having the birthday may make of (sic) request of the other parent for the children to spend time with the parent on their birthday and the other parent will facilitate this occurring if practicable.
It is an agreed fact that the mother’s birthday is in the latter half of the year.
Count 1 of the father’s Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 alleges that the mother failed to make the children available to spend time with him on a day in mid-2022.
The background to this Count is that three days prior, the father received a text message from the mother which read as follows:
Hi [Mr Briggs], it’s my birthday [soon] and I’m trying to plan my weekend. Will you let the boys spend [the day] with me? Thanks.[11]
[11] See ‘Exhibit M8.
A day later, the father replied to the mother’s enquiry as follows:
Hi [Ms Briggs], I didn’t realise it was your birthday, I’ve already got plans for the boys and I this weekend.[12]
[12] See ‘Exhibit M8’.
The father deposes to having received a telephone call from the children. He describes Y speaking to him in “an agitated manner”. Y then informs his father that “we’re not coming to your place because you won’t let us see mum on her birthday”. The father deposes to indicating to Y that he had “not said that”[13] and proposes discussing plans for the weekend after the children were collected by him. The father goes on to describe, in his affidavit, that the telephone was then handed to X and Z who said “something very similar” to their father.[14]
[13] Paragraph 40 of these Reasons suggests that he did say that.
[14] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 2 September 2022 at paragraph 24.
At 7:10pm, the mother forwarded the father an email advising that in response to the father refusing to agree to permit the children to spend some time with their mother to celebrate her birthday, the children are “adamant” that they would not be visiting over the forthcoming weekend.[15]
[15] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 2 September 2022 at ‘Annexure C’.
The mother’s email goes on to advise the father that the children are “flat out refusing” to see him and that X was fearful of being taken out where there was no reception to enable him to telephone his mother to acknowledge her birthday.[16]
[16] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 2 September 2022 at ‘Annexure C’.
Further email communication between the parties over the topic of time for the birthday weekend took place culminating in the father advising the mother by email, at 2:14pm, that he would collect the children from school in accordance with the Court order. The mother replied advising the father, at 2:32pm, that the children were in her care and that she would contact the father on Monday to see if the children would be prepared to spend time with him.[17]
[17] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 2 September 2022 at paragraph 29.
The father was cross-examined about a traumatic event which occurred for X in 2021. The father conceded that in 2021 (being the day after the mother’s birthday) X was badly injured during a period of time in his father’s care. The father agreed that X was injured on his back and his hands but denied that X had been injured on his face. The father accepted that it had been “a horrific event” for X and his brothers. He acknowledged that the mother had not worked for a period of one month when caring for X to recover from his injury. The father denied that X has faced mental health challenges due to the incident itself or its sequalae being permanent injury to his body which is evident to X and others. In the witness box, the father was unable to recognise that the date of the mother’s birthday may at the very least be significant to X given what had occurred only 12 months prior.
It is evident from reading the father’s affidavit,[18] that the father did not attend to collect the children in accordance with paragraph 14 of the final consent order which compels him to personally undertake the handovers. The father deposes to facilitating his father and sister attending at the school for the mother’s birthday to collect the children as he was outside of the Brisbane area that afternoon due to work. Neither the paternal grandfather nor the paternal aunt were called to give evidence on behalf of the father at Trial.
[18] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 2 September 2022 at paragraph 30.
This is problematic for the father. The father was not at handover to collect the children. He cannot give evidence as to what occurred. There is a hiatus in the evidence which is fatal to this Count. At its highest, the evidence reveals the mother telling him by email that the children had been collected from school by her. But the father does not know this because he was not there.
I find that for the alleged breach for the mother’s birthday in 2022, there is no case to answer for the simple reason that the father did not attend the handover as the order provided for him to do. It is also pertinent for the Court to make the observation of the perversity in the father seeking to sanction the mother for an alleged breach of the final orders that he himself did not comply with.
Count 1 of the father’s Application for Contravention filed 2 September 2022 shall be dismissed.
Telephone Contraventions[19]
[19] Being Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Contravention Application filed 21 February 2023.
Paragraph 21 of the final consent orders reads as follows:
21.That each parent shall facilitate the children speaking to the other parent by telephone between 6.30pm and 7.30pm each alternate night when the children are in their care and the parent who has the care of the children shall initiate the communication by contacting the other parent’s mobile telephone number.
By its terms, the language in paragraph 21 of the final consent orders provides a mandatory obligation on the parent who has the care of the children to facilitate the telephone communication to the other parent. This is seen by the use of the word “shall” in relation to facilitating the children speaking to the other parent and again the word “shall” in relation to initiating the communication to the other parent.
In the context of the current dispute, the father complains that the mother has not taken steps to facilitate or initiate the telephone calls on the dates alleged as she is required to do under the terms of paragraph 21 of the final consent orders.
The father alleges that he did not receive a telephone call from the children on 14 separate occasions between 6 December 2022 and 1 February 2023. The category of alleged telephone breaches is by far the largest compilation of alleged breaches before the Court for Trial.
The mother complains that no reference point or means of calculation is advanced by the father to prove or support the alleged dates.[20] Further, no corroborative evidence provided which would support his contentions.[21]
[20] See the Written Submissions of the mother filed 26 January 2024 at paragraph 14.
[21] See the Written Submissions of the mother filed 26 January 2024 at paragraph 16.
Under cross-examination, the father agreed that there was nothing in the material to explain how he calculated the dates set out in his Contravention applications. He conceded that he could have “possibly” misinterpreted the dates for the telephone calls but maintained that the scheduled day for a telephone call was in late 2022. Paragraph 21 of the final consent order provides for telephone calls each alternate night which would then pick up the cycle following late 2022 as alleged by the father in his Application.
The tenor of the cross-examination of the father provides a window to the possible defence ultimately to be proffered by the mother.
The father conceded in his evidence that the mother now works as a health care worker, that her employment involves night shifts and that the children have their own mobile telephones.
The father agreed in evidence that the mother “may” not have her telephone at work. He refused to accept that she “definitely” did not have her telephone at work despite receiving a text message from the mother in mid-2022 informing him that she was required to place her mobile telephone in a locker whilst performing her professional duties as a health care worker.
The father conceded under cross-examination that he has refused to vary the current telephone order as suggested by the mother. The mother argues that the variation she has proposed would make the order for telephone communication more practical noting both parties work, the children have their own mobile telephones and are of an age where they can operate their own devices.
The father opposes the mother’s proposed variation despite his acknowledgment under cross-examination that he can contact the children on their mobile telephones and that he and Z have even exchanged social media videos via their mobile telephones. The following exchange between the mother’s counsel and the father exemplifies the issue:
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: All right. We know because it’s in evidence that even in response to this contravention application, the mother says to you through solicitors on record you can contact the boys at any time, right. Now, if that’s the case – if it is the case that you don’t receive a telephone call on the nominated day in the nominated time, why don’t you just simply ring the boys and have a conversation?
THE FATHER: Why don’t I?
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Yes?
THE FATHER: Because I’m expecting a call between 6:30 and 7:30.
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Yes. That might be the case. Let’s just say for theoretical purposes, by 7:30, again, hasn’t happened. And you might think – you might think, given it’s been an issue – maybe, maybe mum is at work. Do you think that?
THE FATHER: I also think that ---
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: Do you think that?
THE FATHER: No I don’t think that.
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: So it doesn’t enter your head that if the phone call hasn’t occurred, given that this has been an issue where you’ve been told the phone is in the locker since [mid] 2022, she tells you she works, you know she works, she might not have the phone available – it doesn’t enter your head to think she might be at work. Is that right?
THE FATHER: Even if she is at work ---
COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER: No. Does it not enter your head?
THE FATHER: No, it doesn’t.[22]
[22] Taken from the Transcript of Day 2 of the Trial, 10 August 2023 at page 64 – 65.
Whilst I accept that the father has been in error in relation to other dates as pleaded in Counts 11 and 21 of his Application for Contravention filed on 21 February 2023,[23] I cannot by extension simply assume that the dates for the telephone contraventions are also incorrect.
[23] These counts were dismissed on 9 August 2023.
I am yet to hear the mother’s evidence. I find that the mother has a case to answer in relation to the telephone counts.
Alleged Contravention on 9 December 2022 – Count 3 of Application filed 21 February 2023
Paragraph 8 of the final consent orders provides that the children are to spend time with the father, unless otherwise agreed, for three separate weeks of the Christmas school holidays commencing with the first week and each alternate week in even numbered years. Paragraph 8 of the final consent order needs to be read against paragraph 14 of the same order which provides for changeovers on a non-school day to occur at each party’s home.
Count 3 of the father’s Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 alleges that the mother failed to make the children available on 9 December 2022. The year 2022 is obviously an even numbered year so the time was to commence in the first week of the holiday period.
In his affidavit, the father asserts that the mother “refused” to deliver the children to changeover and consequently the children spent no time with him for the first week of the Christmas school holidays.[24]
[24] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 21 February 2023 at paragraph 16.
The father was not present at the handover and had arranged for his father to collect the children on his behalf.[25] He conceded his non-attendance under cross-examination. The paternal grandfather was not called to give evidence at Trial. The father cannot give evidence about the events at changeover because he was not there.
[25] See the Affidavit of Mr Briggs filed 21 February 2023 at paragraph 18.
It only became evident to the father when it was put to him in cross-examination what should have been obvious from the start. Namely, that by sending an agent to attend to collect the children at changeovers, he was himself non-compliant with paragraph 14 of the final consent orders. Notwithstanding his evidence, the father has not elected to invite the Court to dismiss this Count and the Court has been required to rule on whether or not the mother has a case to answer.
I find there is no case to answer for the simple reason that the father was not present at the handover and therefore not able to give evidence as to what occurred. There is the same hiatus in the evidence as was fatal to the alleged breach in 2022.
Count 3 of the father’s Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023 shall be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
It is incumbent on the Court to make observations about these proceedings thus far.
As at 23 January 2024, the father had incurred legal costs of $58,035.97. Future legal costs were estimated at between $17,000 to $25,000 to conclude the matter.[26]
[26] See the Costs Notice filed 23 January 2024 on behalf of Mr Briggs.
As at 24 January 2024, the mother had incurred total paid, unpaid and unbilled legal costs of $95,811.71. Future legal costs were estimated at between $33,000 to $66,000 to conclude the matter.[27]
[27] See the Costs Notice filed 24 January 2024 on behalf of Ms Briggs.
If the worse comes to pass, the father will have spent approximately $83,035 and the mother will have spent $161,811 on these proceedings. This is a combined sum of approximately $244,846 on legal fees to find out whether or not the mother has breached 14 counts of a telephone communication order and the three remaining counts as alleged in Counts 7, 8 and 16 of the Application for Contravention filed 21 February 2023. Counts 8 and 16 relate only to X. X is now 14 years of age. The preliminary evidence suggests that there have been difficulties in the relationship between X and his father since the tragic events of 2021.
On any assessment, the combined estimate on legal fees is a grotesque amount of money. Whatever the ultimate result, I anticipate that costs will be a ‘live’ issue at some later stage.
The Court makes these comments to bring into stark focus the proportionality of these proceedings and what is hoped to be achieved when they eventually conclude.
I propose to list the remaining counts for Trial allowing one further day and I will hear submission from counsel upon the delivery of these Reasons as to a convenient resumption date.
For all of the above Reasons, the Court makes the Orders as set out at the commencement of this Judgment.
I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dickson. Associate:
Dated: 6 March 2024
0
11
2