Gibson & Cordingley - [2025] FedCFamC2F 251

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gibson & Cordingley [2025] FedCFamC2F 251

File number: CAC 1724 of 2022

Judgment of: DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

Date of judgment: 21 February 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the father seeks an adjournment – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the adjournment – Where the reason for the adjournment is unmeritorious – Consideration of the overarching purpose – Where there is no entitlement to an adjournment – Waste of Court resources if adjournments are granted without cogent reasons – Oral application for adjournment dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 95

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.04

Cases cited:
Alhalek v Quintiliani [2021] FCAFC 139

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Dahdah v Platinum Distributors Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 65

Gabrielle v Abood (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 28

Zubair v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2905

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of hearing: 21 February 2025

Place: Sydney (via video link)

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Michie

Solicitor for the Applicant: Jacqui Griffin Mobile Solicitor

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Clarke

Solicitor for the Respondent: Operational Legal Australia

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Conte-Mills

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Phillip A Wilkins & Associates
ORDERS

CAC 1724 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS GIBSON

Applicant

AND:
MR CORDINGLEY

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent father’s application for an adjournment is dismissed.

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
MCCLELLAND DCJ:

The respondent father, Mr Cordingley (“the father”), has applied for an adjournment. The purpose of the adjournment application is for counsel for the father to obtain access to a complaint the father made regarding the manner in which I conducted myself at a directions hearing on 2 October 2024.
Counsel indicated that she would need to review the nature of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gibson & Cordingley

Details

AGLC: Gibson & Cordingley [2025] FedCFamC2F 251
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 251
Decision Date: 21 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Ms Gibson versus Mr Cordingley involved a dispute regarding an application for an adjournment. The father, Mr Cordingley, sought an adjournment in proceedings concerning their child, while Ms Gibson, the mother, and the Independent Children's Lawyer opposed the adjournment. The court was required to determine whether the reasons provided by the father for the adjournment were sufficient to warrant a delay in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the father’s reasons for seeking an adjournment were cogent and justifiable under the circumstances. The court considered the overarching purpose of family law proceedings, which is to resolve disputes in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The court also weighed the potential waste of court resources if adjournments were granted without strong justifications. The opposition from the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer further complicated the decision, as they argued that the adjournment would not serve the best interests of the child.

After examining the reasons provided by Mr Cordingley, the court found them to be unmeritorious and not sufficient to warrant an adjournment. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that adjournments are not granted frivolously, to avoid unnecessary delays and resource expenditure. Consequently, the court dismissed the father’s application for an adjournment, adhering to the principles of efficiency and effectiveness in family law proceedings. The dismissal of the application resulted in the court reaffirming the importance of substantial reasons for any adjournment in family law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

CAC 1724 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS GIBSON

Applicant

AND:

MR CORDINGLEY

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent father’s application for an adjournment is dismissed.

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.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	CAC 1724 of 2022
Judgment of:	DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND
Date of judgment:	21 February 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT – Where the father seeks an adjournment – Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the adjournment – Where the reason for the adjournment is unmeritorious – Consideration of the overarching purpose – Where there is no entitlement to an adjournment – Waste of Court resources if adjournments are granted without cogent reasons – Oral application for adjournment dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 95 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.04
Cases cited:	Alhalek v Quintiliani [2021] FCAFC 139 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 Dahdah v Platinum Distributors Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 65 Gabrielle v Abood (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 28 Zubair v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2905
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	9
Date of hearing:	21 February 2025
Place:	Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Michie
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Jacqui Griffin Mobile Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Clarke
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Operational Legal Australia
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Ms Conte-Mills
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

CAC 1724 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS GIBSON Applicant
AND:	MR CORDINGLEY Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MCCLELLAND
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2025