Campbell and Myers

In *Campbell & Myers* [2014] FamCA 122, Ms Campbell, the applicant, sought an order to expedite her application for final parenting orders, specifically concerning her desire to relocate to Ireland with the child. Mr Myers, the respondent, did not file a response to this submission. The matter came before Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia by way of written submissions.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Ms Campbell's application should be expedited, thereby taking priority over other cases, in accordance with Rule 12.10A of the *Family Law Rules 2004* (Cth). This rule requires the Court to consider various factors, including the parties' conduct in seeking an expeditious resolution, potential prejudice to the respondent, and whether there are specific circumstances justifying priority, such as the age or health of a party or child, allegations of abuse, or the potential loss of a significant opportunity.

Cronin J granted the application to expedite the matter. His Honour reasoned that Ms Campbell had acted expeditiously in filing her relocation application. He found no prejudice to Mr Myers, who had not raised any such concerns. While acknowledging that interim orders were not causing immediate hardship, Cronin J considered that an expedited trial would likely avoid serious emotional trauma for Ms Campbell, whose future remained uncertain pending resolution. His Honour noted that the mother's desire to relocate to Ireland, her homeland where her extended family resides, and her efforts to secure employment and property there, coupled with the unresolved nature of the parenting arrangements, justified giving the case priority.

The Court ordered that all extant applications for final orders be listed for a hearing before Justice Thornton on 7 May 2014 for the purpose of scheduling a final hearing. The parties and their legal representatives were required to attend this hearing. Furthermore, the Court directed that by 4 pm on 4 April 2014, the Applicant was to file and serve an amended application detailing the precise orders sought, and by 4 pm on 20 April 2014, the Respondent was to file and serve an amended response outlining his proposed orders. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was also directed to advise parties of any firm position on proposed orders and to present a copy of those orders to the Court on the return date. The Court also stipulated that if a party failed to comply with these orders, the complying party could apply to proceed on an undefended basis.