Davies v Department of Transport and Planning
[2024] FedCFamC2G 1313
•13 November 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Davies v Department of Transport and Planning [2024] FedCFamC2G 1313
File number(s): MLG 1186 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE C. E. KIRTON KC Date of judgment: 13 November 2024 Catchwords: FAIR WORK – Oral application for an adjournment of the hearing by the Applicant on 13 November 2024 – evidence in final hearing concluded on 8 November 2024 – proceeding commenced by Applicant on 4 July 2023, oral application for adjournment on 13 November 2024 opposed by Respondent, oral application for adjournment dismissed. Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 13 November 2024 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Denton Solicitor for the Respondent: Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office ORDERS
MLG 1186 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: STEPHANIE MARIE DAVIES
Applicant
AND: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND PLANNING
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE C. E. KIRTON KC
DATE OF ORDER:
13 NOVEMBER2024
BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraph 23 of the Affidavit filed by the Applicant on 12 November 2024 be struck out.
2.The time for the Applicant to file an affidavit as per the Orders made 7 October 2024, be extended to 12 November 2024.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.The oral application for an adjournment made by the Applicant be refused.
4.Judgment be reserved.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR JUDGE C. E. KIRTON KC:
The Applicant makes an oral application today for the adjournment of the proceeding. The oral application for an adjournment is without previous notice to the Court. The proceeding has reached a stage where evidence has been closed for both parties, save and except for the affidavit filed yesterday by the Applicant (12 November 2024 Affidavit). There is no written application in support of an adjournment, with the exception of a couple of paragraphs in the 12 November 2024 Affidavit.
These proceedings were commenced on 4 July 2023, some one (1) and a half years ago. It is evident from the Initiating Application and the Form 2 that were filed by the Applicant on 4 July 2023 that the Applicant had some assistance from lawyers. None of the matters which the Applicant has raised today in support of her submission for an adjournment are on affidavit. The Applicant also alleges personal issues which have delayed her seeking legal advice.
The Applicant's principal reason for her application for an adjournment is that she wishes to seek legal advice. This matter has already been adjourned for over a month for final submissions. There is no indication from any submissions made by the Applicant from the Bar table today that she has been able to obtain legal advice during that period of time. As indicated previously, evidence in the case is now closed. The Applicant was provided with a copy of the transcript by the Respondent. A period of one month has expired since the last Court event and also a period of one and a half years since this proceeding commenced. The Court's overriding obligation is that matters should be dealt with expeditiously.
I am also in the position of having formed a view, subject to hearing submissions, about the strength of the Applicant's case, which I indicated to the Applicant at the conclusion of the hearing on 8 October 2024. This view is subject to hearing submissions, and my ruling stands in relation to the adjournment application.
The Court has an obligation to proceed expeditiously with matters under the relevant legislation. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the Applicant has had more than ample time (being a period of one (1) and a half years) to seek the legal advice that she wants to seek or needs to seek and, certainly, as this matter has been adjourned for over a month, there has been further time. In these circumstances, the application for an adjournment of the proceeding is refused.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge C. E. Kirton KC. Associate:
Dated: 2 December 2024
0
0
0