Milson and Myron - [2019] FamCA 69

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MILSON & MYRON

[2019] FamCA 69

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Application dismissed.

APPLICANT:

Ms Milson

RESPONDENT:

Mr Myron

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Geysen

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

3628

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

11 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Carew J

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr A.B. George

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	KLM Solicitors
FOR THE RESPONDENT:	No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Watt (appeared to seek leave to withdraw only)

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Ms K. Oakley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

CNG Law

Orders

The Application in a Case filed by Mr Myron on 8 February 2019 seeking an adjournment of the trial listed from 11 to 15 February 2019 and the informal request for adjournment contained in an email communication to the Court dated 10 February 2019 be dismissed.

NOTATION

A.It is noted that Mr Myron was advised by email immediately following judgment delivery that his application for adjournment was dismissed and that the trial would be proceeding as listed.
B.It is further noted that Mr Watt, solicitor, appeared in person on behalf of T Pty Ltd to withdraw as lawyers for the respondent father.

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 Milson & Myron 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 3628 of 2018

Ms Milson

Applicant

And

Mr Myron

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 4 October 2018 this matter was listed for trial to commence before me today, 11 February 2019, for five days with an additional two days set aside if the matter could not be finished.
On 8 February 2019, Mr Myron, the respondent in these parenting proceedings, filed an application for an adjournment of the trial for three months or until such time as the Court considers appropriate. His application is returnable today, the first day of trial.
It was brought to my attention earlier this morning that an email had been received from Mr Myron by the case coordinator in the following terms:
Please bring the below to the immediate attention of the Court. I advise that I am medically unfit to attend court from 11 February to 16 February 2019. I attach below medical certificate.
There is a second email sent two minutes after that one in very similar terms and there are then two documents which purport to be medical certificates. One from…

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 Milson and Myron

Details

AGLC: Milson and Myron [2019] FamCA 69
Case: [2019] FamCA 69
Decision Date: 11 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Milson and Myron, Mr Myron applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an adjournment of a trial scheduled to commence on 11 February 2019. The application was filed on 8 February 2019, and an informal request for adjournment was also made via email on 10 February 2019.

The central legal issue before Carew J was whether the trial should be adjourned as requested by Mr Myron. This required the Court to consider the grounds for the adjournment and the impact of granting or refusing such a request on the administration of justice and the parties involved.

Carew J dismissed both the formal application and the informal request for adjournment. The decision implies that the Court found the reasons provided by Mr Myron insufficient to warrant delaying the trial, prioritising the efficient conduct of court business and the interests of the other party, Milson. The Court's refusal indicates a high threshold for granting adjournments, particularly when made close to the trial date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in a Case filed by Mr Myron on 8 February 2019 seeking an adjournment of the trial listed from 11 to 15 February 2019 and the informal request for adjournment contained in an email communication to the Court dated 10 February 2019 be dismissed.

NOTATION

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.