Lahiri & Saha (No 2) - [2022] FedCFamC1F 273

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Lahiri & Saha (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 273

File number(s): BRC 8518 of 2020

Judgment of: JARRETT J

Date of judgment: 21 February 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure –Adjournment

Cases cited: Buljubasic & Buljubasic (1999) 25 Fam LR 371

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of last submission/s: 21 February 2022

Date of hearing: 21 February 2022

Place: Brisbane

The Applicant: Litigant in person

The First Respondent: Litigant in person

Counsel for the Second Respondent Mr Keane

Solicitor for the Second Respondent Stacks Law Firm

The Third Respondent: No appearance by the Third Respondent

ORDERS

BRC 8518 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR LAHIRI

Applicant

AND:
MS SAHA

First Respondent

MR FELTOS

Second Respondent

D PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE D PTY LTD SUPERANNUATION FUND
Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 FEBRUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All outstanding applications to adjourn the hearing listed to 21 February, 2022 are 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 Lahiri & Saha is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JARRETT J:

The application for the adjournment is refused. There is no basis for the adjournment. This application has been set down for hearing of the relevant issues since September last year. This is the second attempt to have a trial of these proceedings and the issues that are set for determination in this trial.
It is the second attempt by the first respondent to adjourn today’s hearing. The first attempt I dealt with and refused for reasons that I gave at that time in early February. The grounds of the adjournment application have not really changed. On the last occasion, it was said that there were serious issues that needed to be considered, that there were problems with the applicant’s standing vis-à-vis the second respondent and the trustee of the superannuation fund. It was said that the third respondent, the trustee of the superannuation fund was unrepresented. It was said that the first respondent did not have a lawyer because her lawyers were going to withdraw – and, indeed, the lawyers tried to withdraw, but because they had not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lahiri & Saha (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Lahiri & Saha (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 273
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 273
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1, dealt with an application for an adjournment in the case of Lahiri & Saha (No 2). The applicant, Mr Lahiri, and the first respondent, Ms Saha, appeared as litigants in person, while the second respondent, Mr Feltos, was represented by counsel and solicitors. The third respondent, D Pty Ltd as trustee for the D Pty Ltd Superannuation Fund, did not appear. The case involved issues of family law practice and procedure, specifically concerning an application to adjourn the hearing of the case, which had been set down for 21 February 2022. This was the second attempt by Ms Saha to have the hearing adjourned.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to grant an adjournment of the hearing. Ms Saha argued that there were several reasons warranting an adjournment, including issues with the applicant's standing, unrepresented parties, difficulties with health, lack of proper disclosure, and the absence of legal representation. The court needed to determine whether these reasons were valid and warranted a delay in the hearing of the case.

Justice Jarrett dismissed the application for an adjournment, finding that there was no basis for the adjournment. The court noted that the application had been set down for hearing since September the previous year, and this was the second attempt to have a trial of the proceedings. The reasons for the adjournment, which had been previously raised and rejected, were reiterated without any new evidence or justification. The court found that there was no proper evidence to suggest that Ms Saha was incapable of representing herself, that there had not been proper disclosure, or that obtaining legal representation was a realistic prospect. The court also rejected the argument that proceedings pending in another court warranted an adjournment. Justice Jarrett concluded that the application for an adjournment was merely an attempt to delay the hearing of the application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for an adjournment, finding no valid grounds for a delay in the hearing of the case. The court emphasized that there was no proper evidence to support the reasons for the adjournment, and that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court was prepared to hear the matters that remained to be determined on the application.

Orders