Csobe and Krinova

[2010] FamCA 832

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CSOBE & KRINOVA [2010] FamCA 832

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Transfer to Federal Magistrates Court

APPLICANT: Mr Csobe

RESPONDENT: Ms Krinova

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4765 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 6 September 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cohen J

HEARING DATE: 6 September 2010

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Gordon

Pearson Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Saltoon
Abrams Turner Whelan Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That the parties shall attend a Conciliation Conference at 9.30am 15 September 2010.

2. That in the event that the parties do not settle these proceedings within 14 days after the Conciliation Conference fixed for 15 September 2010 the proceedings are hereby transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.

3. That all costs are reserved.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4765 of 2009

MR CSOBE

Applicant

And

MS KRINOVA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter is before me and involves property less than $200,000 in all probability. Section 33B of the Family Law Act permits me to, at the Court’s initiative, transfer the proceedings to a Federal Magistrates Court. In deciding whether or not that should be done the Court is required by the Act to consider specific matters. By section 33B(6), those matters are: The Rules of Court which have to be complied with for the purpose of transfer; whether there are proceedings in any associated matter pending in a Magistrates Court; whether the resources of the Federal Magistrates Court are sufficient to hear and determine the proceedings; and, the interests of the administration of justice.

2. The Rules of Court themselves require me to consider: the public interest; whether the proceedings, if transferred, are likely to be less costly to the parties or more conveniently or earlier heard. I also have to consider whether there is a suitable judicial officer specialising in the type of case available and the availability of particular procedures appropriate to the case; the financial value of the claim; the complexity of the facts; the legal issues, remedies and procedures involved in the case; the adequacy of the available facilities having regard to any disability of the party or a witness and the wishes of the parties.

3. Now, I shall go back to the Act.  I shall return to the Rules of Court later.  There are no proceedings pending in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Federal Magistrates Court has resources which are sufficient to hear and determine the proceedings, although not quickly.  The benefit however of going to a Federal Magistrate is that this Court too does not have sufficient resources to hear the matter quickly and the matter is likely to be heard faster and determined faster in the Magistrates Court. The interest of the administration of justice is that this is a case which, on any ordinary judgment, because of the amount of money involved and the fact that it is completely uncomplicated, should be heard in the simplest way.  The Magistrates Court was designed for hearings such as this.  This Court was designed for hearings which are more complex. Therefore it is in the interest of the administration of justice that the matter be transferred to the Magistrates Court.  It is the same in relation to considering the Rules with respect to public interest.  For the reasons I have already referred to, this case should be transferred to the Magistrates Court because it will be less costly, more convenient and heard earlier.  In both courts there are judicial officers specialising in the type of case.  Their availability depends on how one looks at the matter, but if availability relates to the time of availability the Magistrates Court is likely to have a judicial officer available before the Family Court.

4. Both courts have available procedures appropriate to the case, however the simplicity of the Magistrates Court makes the matter more appropriately heard there.  I have already mentioned the financial value of the claim which makes it appropriate to be heard in the Magistrates Court as well as the complexity of the facts, remedies and procedures which, again, make the Magistrates Court the more appropriate court.  I have been told of no disabilities of the parties.  Neither solicitor who appears in front of me has suggested that the parties wish to remain in this court.  So it is obvious that this matter should be transferred to the Magistrates Court.

5. However, the matter is already due to have a conciliation conference in this court.  If the matter is transferred, a new appointment for a conciliation conference will have to take place in the Magistrates Court.  That will cause some delay.  To avoid that, what I propose to do and what I regard as appropriate to do, is to make an order that this matter be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court, Sydney Registry, in the event that after the conciliation conference in this court, the matter is still unsettled, after 14 days. They are the orders I shall make. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cohen delivered on 6 September 2010.

Associate:     

Date:              21 September 2010