JACKSON & SHEA

[2012] FamCA 488

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JACKSON & SHEA [2012] FamCA 488

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for expedited hearing refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Jackson

RESPONDENT: Ms Shea

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5985 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 27 June 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Berry Family Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Forte Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That the application of the husband for an expedited first day is refused.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Jackson & Shea has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5985  of 2011

Mr Jackson

Applicant

And

Ms Shea

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a dispute between the husband and the wife that began when the husband filed an initiating property application in July 2011 to which the wife responded in September 2011 seeking property orders but also parenting orders. 

2. The parties have had an interim hearing before the Senior Registrar and there are orders in place that cover the future until the final hearing can occur.

3. Each of the parties provided a submission relating to the expedition of the hearing and each sought that the matter be given some priority.

4. The husband’s submission was that the existing report of a psychologist only took matters up until 1 February 2013.  Be that as it may, the orders of the Court are until further order regardless of what the psychologist may have recommended.

5. Rule 12.10A of the Family Law Rules 2004 provides that a party may apply to expedite the first day before the judge. It is a discretionary determination.

6. Rule 12.10A(2) provides that the Court may take into account whether the parties have acted reasonably and without delay and whether there is any prejudice to the respondent. In this case none of those matters appears relevant. A fourth consideration that guides the discretion is whether there is a relevant circumstance which would justify giving the case priority to the possible detriment of other cases. The circumstances set out in the rules that give guidance to that determination are described in Rule 12.10A(4). None of those matters is applicable here.

7. To the extent that there may be a delay in a final hearing, the parties always  have an opportunity to make an application for further interim orders if they can show that there has been a change of circumstances since the extant orders were made and that those orders are no longer appropriate to continue until the final hearing.

8. In the Melbourne registry, the delay between the filing of the initiating application and trial is only a few months over a year.  This case would most likely therefore be called on for hearing as a first day towards the end of 2012 in any event.

9. Having regard to the submissions of both parties, I see no basis to give this case a priority which would effectively create a delay for other cases which are equally pressing and which have been in the list for a longer period. 

10. Accordingly, the application for an expedited hearing is declined.

I certify that the preceding Ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 27 June 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  27 June 2012