Grefeld and Grefeld

[2009] FamCA 579

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GREFELD & GREFELD AND ANOR [2009] FamCA 579

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment
APPLICANT:	Ms Grefeld

RESPONDENT: Mr Grefeld

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mrs J Grefeld

FILE NUMBER: BRF 2504 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 19 June 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 19 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hamwood of Counsel appearing for the Applicant Mother

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT: Peter J Sheehy

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Dr Sayers of Counsel appearing for the First Respondent Husband

SOLICITORS FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Herbert Geer

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Mr McCarthy, Solicitor of Jones McCarthy Lawyers appearing for the Second Respondent

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The trial dates of 29 June 2009 to 1 July be vacated.

2. The Husband to provide within seven (7) days to the Wife a copy of his passport and/or passports.

3. Costs of all parties reserved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. The proceedings be adjourned for case management review to 9.30 am on
   20 August 2009.

2. The proceedings be listed for trial for four days commencing 10.00 am
   26 October 2009 at the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF2504 of 2005

MS GREFELD

Applicant

And

MR GREFELD

First Respondent

And

MRS J GREFELD
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I propose to grant the adjournment sought by the first respondent.  These are reports from what I assume to be a specialist medical practitioner.  He says he cannot recommend the husband undertake overseas travel.  He has strongly advised for the respondent to undergo invasive coronary diagnostics as soon as possible.  I understand that will be done and Dr S has said in her opinion there will be a subsequent rehabilitation of six to eight weeks duration.  She expects that after that time the respondent would be able to travel and take part in the trial, although she will seek the opinion of a Professor M of the Heart Centre in Hamburg on that issue.  There is a further report a day prior giving a general medical diagnosis.  I understand that Dr S has been the medical practitioner treating the husband for many years.

2. I proceed on the basis that travel is out of the question in the face of those medical reports.  I am certainly not prepared to take the risk of ignoring the contents of the medical reports.  The delay in question in the overall scheme of things is not great.  The trial can come on before the end of the year.  The prejudice to the applicant can be compensated, for example any costs thrown away can be argued later.  Seemingly, her ability to reside in the home is not in any way threatened.  There are other assets, but they consist of real estate.  So the prejudice aspect, other than the delay, has not been stressed.

3. I would be most reluctant to conduct a trial of this complexity by electronic communication.  Telephone is simply out of the question.  By video link I can indicate in no uncertain terms and with the current budgetary constraints the Court will not be paying the video link, the money is going to have to be paid up front to secure that.  How that can be done I have no idea.  Similarly, inquiries would have to be made from the Australian Embassy in Berlin.  I have got the discretion to direct that there be a video link from some other centre, such as Hamburg, but I would want detailed evidence of security at the centre and availability, cost and things of that nature.

4. A Judge issues trial directions and then has a hearing such as this to confirm the trial directions have been complied with.  I was astonished when what was one box of documents is now two large boxes and there is a huge amount of material.

5. I have not read all that material, but the preliminary view I take is I would not require updating material prior to any trial by the end of the year.  It seems to me that costs here have been significant.  I am not going to be bound by that, but I would need a lot of persuading that things are going to change between now and then.  The assets are the assets.

6. Another reason why I am amenable to the adjournment is the fact that, having seen the amount of material and considered the extent of the witnesses in the case, I am satisfied three days may not be sufficient time.  I would like to direct that copies of the husband's passport be made available within seven days to confirm that there have only been two periods of air travel in the last eighteen months.

7. Other issues such as time, suitable dates when counsel are available and other aspects that may occur to me after I have read the material can be raised when I will set a mention date, but I will not set a mention date at this stage. 

8. I have been reminded to ask about the interpreter.  The Court provides interpreting services at Court's cost, but we do not have interpreters here sitting at the back of the Court doing nothing, we prefer to have all witnesses whose evidence will require translating to be approximately the same time.

   RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

9. I will set this down for review 9.30 on 20 August 2009.

   RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

10. I will reserve costs of all parties in relation to the application for an adjournment.

    RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry

Associate:  

Date:  19 June 2009