Kanata v Tyro Payments Limited
[2023] FedCFamC2G 472
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kanata v Tyro Payments Limited [2023] FedCFamC2G 472
File number(s): SYG 2589 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON Date of judgment: 31 May 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment on health grounds – adjournment granted. Division: Fair Work Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 31 May 2023 Place: Sydney For the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondents: Mills Oakley ORDERS
SYG 2589 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: FITRI KANATA
Applicant
AND: TYRO PAYMENTS LIMITED
First Respondent
ROBBIE COOKE
Second Respondent
YVETTE MANDANAS (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:
31 MAY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be listed for directions on 1 September 2023 at 10:15am.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CAMERON
INTRODUCTION
This matter has had a tortured history of delay and non-compliance by the applicant, Ms Kanata. On many occasions in the last year or so, Ms Kanata has sought indulgences because of her claimed inability, because of psychiatric or psychological difficulties, to take steps in the proceeding when required to. Various documents, ostensibly medical certificates and the like, have been placed before the Court in support of the requested indulgences, but they have, in general, been elliptical and unpersuasive. That is, until the report of the psychologist, Ms Mijic, which was emailed to the Court on 19 April 2023 in anticipation of a directions hearing listed for the next day. However, Ms Kanata did not attend the directions hearing, and orders sought by the respondents were made in the absence of there being any opposition to them.
APPLICATION IN A PROCEEDING
Ms Kanata has now filed an application in a proceeding in which she seeks an order standing the matter over for three months in order for her to obtain the treatment referred to in Ms Mijic's report. Unsurprisingly, and not unreasonably, the respondents oppose this course and have filed written submissions on the subject which express their position clearly and cogently.
I have to say I have been concerned for some time about Ms Kanata's ability to progress the matter, in circumstances where I do not believe she is prevaricating or consciously malingering but rather tend to the view that she cannot cope. That concern is supported, although not in much detail, by Ms Mijic, whose report is materially more illuminating than the other documents of a similar nature previously provided by Ms Kanata.
CONCLUSION
I am persuaded that Ms Kanata should have the three months she seeks and has repeatedly sought for some months now.
In reaching this conclusion, I am keenly aware of the expense and frustration this will cause the respondents but feel that Ms Kanata has demonstrated that she needs three months completely away from this case to restore her equilibrium. If, at the end of that period, she tells the Court that she still cannot prosecute the case, then it will fall to the respondents to take such action as they may be advised.
There will be an order that the matter be listed for directions in 3 months’ time, on 1 September 2023.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cameron. Associate:
Dated: 6 June 2023
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
SYG 2589 of 2020 Respondents
Fourth Respondent:
MATTHEW PARKES
0
0
0