Moy & Pao
[2022] FedCFamC1F 424
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Moy & Pao [2022] FedCFamC1F 424
File number(s): MLC 6493 of 2011 Judgment of: WILSON J Date of judgment: 14 June 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CASE MANAGEMENT – Proceeding not ready for trial – Proceeding referred to National Assessment Team for ongoing case management. Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 4 Date of hearing: 14 June 2022 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R. Smith Solicitor for the Applicant: Kennedy Partners and Avia Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M. Duckett Solicitor for the Respondent: PCL Lawyers Counsel for the Intervener: Mr D. Carne Solicitor for the Intervener: B Pty Ltd ORDERS
MLC 6493 of 2011 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS MOY
Applicant
AND: MR PAO
Respondent
B PROPRIETARY LIMITED
Intervener
order made by:
WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 JUNE 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.This proceeding is removed from my docket.
2.This proceeding is referred to the National Assessment Team for ongoing case management.
3.Costs are reserved.
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 Pao & Moy is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J
The manner in which this litigation has been conducted is very much less than the exemplar of the way in which litigation should be competently and diligently advanced in this Court. To the contrary, this case was commenced in 2017 and now, well after five years of litigation and at least one trip to the Full Court, the case should have been heard and determined, but is in a state which is very much embryonic.
Today was meant to be a mention to discuss the further conduct of the case upon the remitter of the case from the Full Court. Instead I have been informed that there are at least two separate skirmishes pending in another jurisdiction – one involving an application to set aside a statutory demand that will be heard before the Federal Court of Australia on 1 July 2022 and another in respect of litigation that has been on foot for two years. That matter was brought to my attention for the first time today, notwithstanding the fact that this proceeding was meant to be heard at trial before me some time ago. Prior to today I had not been told about the other pending litigation.
I regard the way in which this case has been conducted as borderline deplorable and it is anything but a model illustration of the way that cases should be conducted in this Court. The case is not ready for trial. It is euphemistically described as part-heard. When the case was before me last the case progressed to no more than housekeeping matters and the limited time that the case was before me was spent vacillating on peripheral side issues. No evidence has been adduced and no openings have been meaningfully advanced. The case is strictly speaking not part-heard. The case could easily be picked up by some other judge when it is better prepared and after satellite skirmishes in other jurisdictions have been determined.
The case is not appropriate to consume judge time. Registrars of this Court can deal with the ongoing case management which is proceeding at glacial speed wholly antithetical to the way cases should be dealt with in this Court.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wilson. Associate:
Dated: 14 June 2022
0
0
0