Kabat & Anor and Garacia

[2019] FamCA 503

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KABAT AND ANOR & GARACIA [2019] FamCA 503

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournments – Where the applicant father was granted leave to make an oral application for an adjournment of the trial – Where the application for adjournment was dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FIRST APPLICANT: Mr Kabat

SECOND APPLICANT: Ms Kabat

RESPONDENT: Ms Garacia

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Bookallil

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7499 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 3 June 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Carew J

HEARING DATE: 3 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE FIRST APPLICANT: Self-represented

FOR THE SECOND APPLICANT: Self-represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Bunning

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: KLM Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mr Minnery

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Burchill & Horsey Lawyers

Orders

1. Leave is granted for the applicant father to make an oral application for an adjournment of the trial.

2. The application for adjournment is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7499 of 2017

Mr Kabat

First Applicant

And

Ms Kabat

Second Applicant

And

Ms Garacia

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyers

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The father has been granted leave to make an oral application for an adjournment of this trial, which was set down by me in February 2019, to commence for five days today.  This matter is one that was given priority in December 2018 and came back before me recently, on 21 May 2019, when the father had not complied with the trial directions.

2. The reasons that the father gives for his application for an adjournment today include the following:

   a)I have not had time to prepare;

   b)I have no support;

   c)There are a lot of lies.  I can prove the lies;

   d)It is complicated and I cannot get help;

   e)I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of recordings, it is a massive task;

   f)I need more time;

   g)There are a lot of people who can support me.  I have to meet up with them.  All of them show that my children are suffering.  Now I’m not able to send them an email, I’m not able to talk to them about this, because of the Magistrates Court.  I’m not able to call a lawyer;

   h)I live in a remote location an hour from Brisbane;

   i)I work remotely;

   j)There are many witnesses; and

   k)I have collected convincing material that show my children need help and my ex needs help.

3. Whilst I have sympathy for someone in Mr Kabat’s position, like many people who represent themselves in proceedings, this matter has been allocated priority and it was listed with priority so that the allegations made against the mother by the father, can be heard and determined on the evidence before this Court.  Indeed, it seems somewhat bizarre that the father is seeking an adjournment of the trial when he maintains that his children need help and that his ex-wife needs help.  And yet, he is wanting to further delay this matter.

4. If the matter is not dealt with in this five days, I simply do not know when the Court will be able to deal with it.  And it seems to me that it is a matter that requires determination.  The effect of further delay on the children is a consideration I must have regard to in determining a parenting matter and given these proceedings have been on foot since July 2017 it seems imperative to proceed. 

5. The father has had ample time to prepare for his case.  If he has failed to do so, while that is regrettable, it is not a basis, in my view, for the adjournment of the trial, and his application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew delivered on 3 June 2019.

Associate: 

Date:  31 July 2019