Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Haines & Rader (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 685
File number(s): SYC 1641 of 2019 Judgment of: BRASCH J Date of judgment: 6 September 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Where adjournment of trial requested by emails – Where picture of Rapid Antigen Test stick provided – Where medical certificate referred to work and a medical condition – Where evidence insufficient – Where Magjarraj & Asteron Life [2009] NSWSC 1433 referred to. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 3.10(1)(b)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 102NA
Cases cited: Cheung& The Queen [1991] ALJR 1093
Emmett & Emmett [1982] FLC 91-212
Magjarraj & Asteron Life [2009] NSWSC 1433
Queensland & JH Holdings [1997] 189 CLR 146; [1997] HCA 1
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 55 Date of hearing: 6 September 2022 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Richards Solicitor for the Applicant: Dettmann Phair Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Litigant in person (did not participate) ORDERS
SYC 1641 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS HAINES
Applicant
AND: MR RADER
Respondent
order made by:
BRASCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 SEPTEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Insofar as the husband moves the Court, by email, to adjourn the trial, such requests are dismissed.
2.Both the husband and wife will be provided with the transcript of the trial by the Court, and:
(a)Upon it being sent by the Court to the husband’s email address known to the court, the husband has 14 days thereafter to file and serve written submissions to the court; and
(b)Upon the husband providing any such written submissions within that 14 days, the wife has 14 days to file and serve any reply.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The effect of Order 1 is that the trial will proceed today.
B.In the event the husband does not file any such written submissions within the 14 days, the court intends to move to judgment, when Her Honour Justice Brasch can thereafter.
C.Should the wife file written submissions in reply, then, again, Her Honour will move to judgment, when she can thereafter.
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 of Haines & Rader has been approved pursuant…
Continue reading Haines & Rader (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Haines & Rader (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 685
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 685
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the evidence provided by Mr Rader was insufficient to justify an adjournment. The picture of the Rapid Antigen Test stick did not demonstrate that Mr Rader was COVID-19 positive, and the medical certificate did not provide sufficient details about his work-related medical condition. The court referred to the case of Magjarraj & Asteron Life [2009] NSWSC 1433 to support its decision that the evidence was inadequate. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Rader's requests to adjourn the trial.
The court ordered that the trial would proceed as scheduled. Both parties were required to file and serve written submissions within 14 days of receiving the trial transcript. If Mr Rader did not file his written submissions within the specified timeframe, the court intended to move to judgment. Should Ms Haines file written submissions in reply, the court would also proceed to judgment. This decision ensures that the trial progresses efficiently and that both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments in a timely manner.
Orders
Orders of the court
SYC 1641 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:
MS HAINES
Applicant
AND:
MR RADER
Respondent
order made by:
BRASCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 SEPTEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Insofar as the husband moves the Court, by email, to adjourn the trial, such requests are dismissed.
2. Both the husband and wife will be provided with the transcript of the trial by the Court, and:
(a) Upon it being sent by the Court to the husband’s email address known to the court, the husband has 14 days thereafter to file and serve written submissions to the court; and
(b) Upon the husband providing any such written submissions within that 14 days, the wife has 14 days to file and serve any reply.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A. The effect of Order 1 is that the trial will proceed today.
B. In the event the husband does not file any such written submissions within the 14 days, the court intends to move to judgment, when Her Honour Justice Brasch can thereafter.
C. Should the wife file written submissions in reply, then, again, Her Honour will move to judgment, when she can thereafter.
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.
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.