Cantrell & Cantrell

[2017] FCCA 2565

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANTRELL & CANTRELL [2017] FCCA 2565

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application for review of a Registrar’s listing decision – application dealt with in chambers and dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.1.06, 15.03

Cases cited:

Quong & Rush [2017] FCCA 1765

Applicant: MR CANTRELL

Respondent: MS CANTRELL

File Number: NCC 3080 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 23 October 2017

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 24 October 2017

REPRESENTATION

Orders made in chambers

ORDERS

1. The Application for Review filed on 19 October 2017 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 3080 of 2013

MR CANTRELL

Applicant

And

MS CANTRELL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 19 October 2017 Mr Cantrell (“the father”) filed an Application for Review of a decision by a Registrar to refuse short service of his application for parenting orders filed on 18 October 2017. The Registrar listed the matter on 11 December 2017.

2. I have read the father’s Initiating Application, Affidavit and Notice of Risk filed on 18 October 2017 and I have also read his Application for Review and affidavit in support filed on 19 October 2017.

3. I intend to dispense with compliance with Rule 15.03 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules and determine the matter in chambers without an oral hearing. ^[1]

   [1] Quong & Rush (2017) FCCA 1765

4. The pressure of work in this court is such that it is unreasonable to expect that all Applications for Review of listings decisions will be listed in open court and be the subject of an oral hearing.

5. Unfortunately these applications tend to come in in volume when a Registry is already under severe pressure trying to deal with incoming work in a timely fashion. If judges are forced to list all such applications in open court and hear submissions about them it either compounds the problem for other litigants who are then squeezed out of hearing time or it adds to the unacceptable pressure on judicial officers who often feel compelled, out of concern for the welfare of children, to sit very long hours. 

6. The father has filed two affidavits containing relevant information, one specifically designed to persuade the court to give him an expedited first return date, and I do not consider that it is unjust to him to determine the matter in chambers.

7. I intend to dismiss the Application for Review. In light of the material in the father’s two affidavits, and in particular in the light of the letter from the mother’s solicitor to the father’s solicitor which is annexed to the father’s second affidavit and which suggests the possibility of the matter being managed satisfactorily by agreement between solicitors pending the first return date, I am not satisfied that this matter requires short service. It will remain listed on 11 December 2017.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry

Date:       24 October 2017