Duarte & Morse (No. 2)

[2017] FamCA 435

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUARTE & MORSE (NO. 2) [2017] FamCA 435

FAMILY LAW – ADJOURNMENT – Whether the final hearing of property and parenting proceedings should be adjourned – Whether there is prejudice to the applicant – Whether there is prejudice to the respondent – Where the applicant has appealed an interim judgment – Where the applicant is self-represented – Where the matter is a longstanding matter.

Family Law Act 1975

APPLICANT: Ms Duarte

RESPONDENT: Mr Morse

FILE NUMBER: SYC 737 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 23 June 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE: 22 June 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Self

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Othen

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Slater & Gordon

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed by the mother on 20 June 2017 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Duarte & Morse (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 737/2014

Ms Duarte

Applicant

And

Mr Morse

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Before the Court is an Application in a Case filed by the mother on 20 June 2017 seeking that the Court vacate a two week trial set to commence on Monday 26 June 2017. The application is opposed by the father. The issues listed to be determined at the hearing to commence 26 June 2016 include final parenting orders and final property orders.

2. Each of the mother and father filed an affidavit which they relied upon in the hearing which I heard on 22 June 2017.

3. The father provided a case outline document and a folder of authorities.

4. The mother set out her affidavit into separate portions, which was helpful as each portion dealt with a specific reason she submitted should lead the court to make the order sought by her or, alternatively, cumulatively would convince the Court such an order was necessary and appropriate. I will address each of the portions of the mother’s affidavit and the submissions she made in relation to same in these reasons, albeit in a limited manner.

5. The reference in the prior paragraph to “a limited manner” arises because the mother informed me during the hearing on 22 June 2017 that if I refused her application she would make an application to another court seeking to restrain my proceeding with the trial. As a consequence of that statement I informed the mother of the following:

   ·I was reasonably certain…