Cierna & Moralez
[2025] FedCFamC1F 202
•27 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Cierna & Moralez [2025] FedCFamC1F 202
File number(s): CAC 1721 of 2024 Judgment of: GILL J Date of judgment: 27 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where the husband seeks summary dismissal of two separate aspects of the wife’s claim – Where the husband seeks this application be dealt with prior to determining the substantive threshold issues associated with the wife’s claim – Where the wife seeks these matters be heard in a single hearing – Summary dismissal matters and threshold matters to be heard separately Legislation Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT)Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of hearing: 27 March 2025 Place: Canberra Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Coleman, SC Solicitor for the Applicant: Robinson + McGuinness Family Law Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Beaumont, SC, with Mr Hollo Solicitor for the Respondent: Hijazi Curran Cameron Lawyers ORDERS
CAC 1721 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS CIERNA
Applicant
AND: MR MORALEZ
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
GILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter is listed on 30 April 2024 at 10:00 am for hearing of the summary dismissal application.
2.The parties are to file an Outline of Case (Interim Hearing) and minute of orders sought by 4:00 pm on 25 April 2025.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GILL J:
These proceedings concern, amongst other matters, the interaction of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) (“Domestic Relationships Act”) that pre-dated the de facto provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“Family Law Act”), and the interaction of both of those bodies of legislation.
The respondent has sought summary dismissal in respect of two aspects of the claim made by the applicant, relating to a spousal maintenance claim, which is the subject of a direction given today to cause the filing of such, and in relation to the displacement of the operation of the Domestic Relationships Act by the provisions now contained in the Family Law Act.
In a case that involves a number of complex competing assertions as to the operation of the law, the prospect of being able to deal summarily with two separate issues purely on the basis of law, holds with it the benefit of the overall simplification of the hearing of the matter and of a more prompt resolution of at least some of the issues between the parties (potentially at least anyway).
Primarily, against that putative benefit, it is argued that such would lead to increased costs and inconvenience by reason of the fragmentation of the proceedings. It may be noted that the summary dismissal matters are entwined with the issues of the interaction between the two bodies of legislation, just as the primary threshold issues to be determined are. That, on its face, is a matter that points towards refusal of the application to deal with the summary dismissal matters prior to dealing with the rest of the threshold matters.
However, as pointed out by counsel for the respondent, the hearing of the summary dismissal applications at the same time as the substantive threshold matters, will not necessarily involve a single hearing for the matters, as unfavourable resolution of the summary dismissal matters for the respondent leaves the prospect of then having to deal with the matters at a subsequent hearing after hearing the balance of the threshold matters.
Given that last matter, and despite the undesirability of the fragmentation of the proceedings by hearing the summary matters in advance, it is beneficial to do so, and directions will be issued in support of such a course of action.
Although the parties have worked together to set out directions in respect of the other substantive threshold matters, it is premature to give directions in respect of those until the resolution of the summary dismissal matter and so directions will issue as to the summary dismissal matters, and on their resolution further directions will issue for the resolution of the threshold matters otherwise.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill. Associate:
Dated: 27 March 2025
0
0
2