Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Daramola v Freeman [2022] FedCFamC2G 1064
Continue reading Daramola v Freeman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Daramola v Freeman [2022] FedCFamC2G 1064
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC2G 1064
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether any of the grounds provided by Dr Freeman for the stay of the proceedings had been made out, and whether there was a real or substantial risk of prejudice or injustice such as to warrant the grant of the Stay Application. The court examined the principles of case management, including the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources, the timely disposal of the Court’s caseload, and the resolution of disputes at a cost proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute. The court also considered the right of the accused, Dr Freeman, to a “manifestly fair criminal trial.”
After considering the arguments and the evidence presented, the court concluded that none of the grounds A, B, or C had been made out by Dr Freeman. The court found that there was no risk of prejudice, or at least a substantial risk of prejudice, such as to give rise to manifestly unfair criminal proceedings if these civil proceedings were not stayed. Consequently, the court dismissed the Stay Application and noted that it would hear the parties as to costs. The court emphasised that if circumstances changed or genuinely new facts emerged, these reasons for judgment would not necessarily preclude a further stay application being made by Dr Freeman.
The court's final order was that the Stay Application be dismissed, and it would hear the parties as to costs. The court did not consider it necessary to impose any orders restricting access to materials or reporting of the matter, or concerning the conduct of the hearing in the civil proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
In relation to case management principles Ms Daramola submitted that:(a)case management principles favour the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible with the objective, under s 190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (“FCAFCOA Act”), of the:(i)efficient use of the judicial and administrative resources available for the purposes of the Court;(ii)efficient disposal of the Court’s overall caseload;(iii)disposal of all proceedings in a timely manner; and(iv)resolution of disputes at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute; and(b)to assist the Court in meeting case management objectives, parties, under r 1.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), must:(i)avoid undue delay, expense and technicality; and (ii)consider options for primary dispute resolution as early as possible.Consideration The relevant principles to be applied to the Stay Application are those derived from McMahon: see also Cameron’s Unit Services Pty Ltd v Kevin R Whelpton Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd and Another (1984) 4 FCR 428; (1984) 59 ALR 754; [1985] ATPR 40-531, FCR at 431-433 per Wilcox J; Bond Corporation, FCR at 171-172 per French J, with the caveat that it is necessary to accord sufficient primacy to the right of the accused, here Dr Freeman, to a “manifestly fair criminal trial”: JB Asset Management & Anor v LBA Capital Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] VSC 629 at [23] per McDonald J.Grounds A and B It is convenient to consider Grounds A and B together. The substantive proceedings in this matter are well advanced. The originating application was filed on 31 January 2020, and the ASOC was filed on 23 April 2020. A Defence was filed on 20 May 2020. Ms Daramola filed an affidavit in support of the originating application on 6 July 2021 and affidavits in reply (including one from Dr Freeman’s daughter-in-law) on 2 March 2022. Dr Freeman filed three affidavits in support of the Defence between 29 October and 9 December 2021. The matter has been the subject of no less than four mediation events before a Registrar of the Court between 23 April 2020 and 14 June 2022 in an endeavour to achieve a resolution of the parties’ dispute. In the ordinary course of events, that is absent the Stay Application, the Court would have been looking to list the matter for final hearing following the last mediation event on 14 June 2022. As the matter presently stands it is unlikely that the matter would now be listed before late November 2023 at the earliest, and more likely the first half of 2024. Case management considerations are important, although not ultimately determinative: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175; (2009) 83 ALJR 951; (2009) 258 ALR 14, in a high volume first instance hearing court such as this Court, and s 190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) provides that the efficient and timely disposal of matters in this Court are part of its objects. In this respect the fact that the matter had been on foot for approximately two and a half years at the time the Stay Application was made, and would ordinarily have now been listed for final hearing, but has been and will be further delayed by the Stay Application is a case management factor which weighs against the grant of the Stay Application. The Stay Application is further not assisted by the fact that any stay would be for an indeterminate length of time given that there is nothing in the evidence before the Court to indicate when any criminal proceedings are likely to be the subject of a trial. There is no evidentiary basis for making a finding as to what degree of concurrency, or likely concurrency, there may be between the hearing of the criminal proceedings and these civil proceedings.