FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Groves & Groves [2021] FedCFamC1F 363
File number(s): SYC 8296 of 2016 Judgment of: HARPER J Date of judgment: 21 October 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournments – Where the respondent wife files an affidavit the evening before callover seeking an adjournment of callover and the husband’s s 106A application due to ill health and lack of legal representation – Where the wife appears legally represented at callover for the purpose of seeking adjournment – Application dismissed. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 106A Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 21 October 2021 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Mathews Solicitor for the Applicant: Broun Abrahams Burreket Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Kearney SC Solicitor for the Respondent: Barkus Doolan ORDERS
SYC 8296 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS GROVES
Applicant
AND: MR GROVES
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 OCTOBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent wife’s application for adjournment of the callover listed at 2:15pm, 21 October 2021 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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 the pseudonym Groves & Groves is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARPER J:
This matter has a long history in this Court. It has been commented upon by the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice and it has been observed at previous directions hearings that the attitude taken by the Respondent Wife, even if not intentionally, has had the consequence nonetheless that the matter has been continuously delayed.
On 2 August 2021, I made orders which were proposed by the Husband, These resulted in the Wife being provided with some $325,000 by way of partial property settlement, $300,000 of which was to be spent on legal costs and disbursements. There was also orders made to enable her to access her entitlements in a superannuation fund.
The matter is listed today for callover. Yesterday evening, the wife filed an affidavit claiming she was unable to deal with the issues of callover and allocation of final hearing dates by reason of ill health and inability to engage legal representation despite the provision of funding to do so, available since the 2 August 2021.
Nonetheless, when the matter was called on at 2:15pm today, there was representation for the wife in the form of solicitor and counsel who were briefed for the limited purpose of making an application to adjourn the callover. Application was made to adjourn any determination or hearing of an application in a proceeding filed by the Husband that seeks orders in the nature of enforcement pursuant to s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) of the orders made on the 2 August 2021, the purpose of which I emphasise, was to provide the wife with access to funding for the purposes not only of the litigation but her living expenses.
I find the evidence and submissions put on behalf of the wife for adjourning either the callover or the s 106A application entirely unconvincing and I refuse the adjournment.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Harper delivered on 21 October 2021. Associate:
Dated: 21 October 2021
- AGLC
- Groves & Groves [2021] FedCFamC1F 363
- Case
- [2021] FedCFamC1F 363
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife’s application for an adjournment of the callover and the related enforcement application should proceed. Justice Harper considered the wife's affidavit and the evidence presented at the hearing. The judge noted that the wife had been provided with substantial funding for legal representation and yet still appeared without adequate legal assistance, which the court found unconvincing. The judge emphasised that the purpose of the previous orders was to provide the wife with access to funding for litigation and living expenses. Consequently, the application for an adjournment was dismissed.
In his judgment, Justice Harper highlighted the long history of delays in the proceedings, attributing the delays to the wife's actions. He found the wife's reasons for seeking an adjournment unconvincing, given the provision of funds for legal representation. The court was not persuaded by the wife's claims of ill health or her inability to engage legal counsel despite the available funds. As a result, the application for an adjournment was refused, and the matter proceeded as scheduled.
The court ordered that the wife's application for adjournment of the callover and related enforcement application was dismissed. This decision underscores the court's stance on the need for parties to proceed with litigation in a timely manner and the consequences of repeated attempts to delay 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.