BURSTON & BURSTON

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BURSTON & BURSTON [2015] FCCA 1981

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Litigation Guardian – significant history of erratic email correspondence with the Court – increasing distress and difficulty for self-represented litigant to coherently conduct trial.

Legislation:  

Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, r.11.12(3)

Forster v Forster (2013) 47 Fam LR 77
L v The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2006) 233 ALR 432

Applicant: MR BURSTON

Respondent: MS BURSTON

File Number: CAC 97 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Neville

Hearing date: 10 June 2015

Date of Last Submission: 16 June 2015

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on:

13 July 2015

22 July 2015 (written reasons)

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Harper

Solicitors for the Applicant: Dobinson, Davey, Clifford, Simpson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Self represented

ORDERS

1. Pursuant to Rule 11.12(3) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, the Attorney-General is requested to appoint a person to be the manager of the affairs of the Respondent Wife, MS BURSTON (born (omitted) 1961) for the purpose of the appointment as her litigation guardian in the family law proceedings.

2. The matter otherwise remains listed for final hearing on 20 August 2015 at 10.00am in Canberra.

AND IT IS NOTED THAT:

A.Subject to the views of the Litigation Guardian, and the policies and procedures which surround their appointment, the abovementioned final hearing date may be postponed if necessary.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Burston & Burston is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT CANBERRA

CAC 97 of 2014

MR BURSTON

Applicant

And

MS BURSTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons, which were delivered on 13^th July, have been revised from the transcript. 

2. The specific issue to determine is whether or not a litigation guardian should be appointed under the Rules of this Court for the Respondent Wife.  The initiative for raising the issue of such an appointment came from the Court during the final hearing of the matter on 10^th June. 

3. Because of the continuing and increasing distress of the Wife (who was and remains a self-represented litigant) during the hearing, and the increasing difficulty to obtain coherent comments from her, I raised with Counsel for the Husband, and with the Wife of course, the prospect of a litigation guardian being appointed.  The trial had reached a stage or state where, in my view, it could not continue.  At that time, as best I could, I explained to the Wife what was meant by such a guardian and the consequences that might or could flow from such an appointment.  One consequence was that she could/would be required to undergo a psychiatric examination.

4. I made orders for the filing of brief written submissions.  Those submissions were as follows.

Submissions

1. The Husband opposes the appointment of a litigation guardian, while the Wife agrees with it.

2. The Husband said that at times the Wife’s conduct “in and of these proceedings” has…