Pacek & Saltzer (No 2) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 666

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Pacek & Saltzer (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 666

File number MLC 2954 of 2020

MLC 7293 of 2024

#...78

#...07

Judgment of WILSON J

Date of judgment 30 September 2024

Catchwords FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by the respondent for an adjournment of the hearing on 30 September 2024 – adjournment application dismissed.

Division Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs 3

Date of last submission 30 September 2024

Date of hearing 30 September 2024

Place Melbourne

In MLC 2954 of 2020

Counsel for the applicant Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland

Solicitor for the applicant ISAKOW Lawyers

Counsel for the respondent Litigant in person

In MLC 7293 of 2024

Counsel for the applicant Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland

Solicitor for the applicant ISAKOW Lawyers

Counsel for the respondent Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman

Solicitor for the respondent J and K Law

In #...78

Counsel for the plaintiffs Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland

Solicitor for the plaintiffs ISAKOW Lawyers

Counsel for the defendant Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman

Solicitor for the defendant J and K Law

In #...07

Counsel for the plaintiffs Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland

Solicitor for the plaintiffs ISAKOW Lawyers

Counsel for the defendant Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman

Solicitor for the defendant J and K Law
ORDERS

MLC 2954 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN
MS PACEK

Applicant

AND
MR SALTZER

Respondent

MLC 7293 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN
MS PACEK

Applicant

AND
MR SALTZER

First Respondent

AND
H PTY LTD
Second Respondent

AND
Q PTY LTD
Third Respondent

AND
W PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

AND
V PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent

AND
E PTY LTD
Sixth Respondent

AND
SALTZER PTY LTD
Seventh Respondent

#...78

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

BETWEEN
H PTY LTD
First Plaintiff

~~AND~~
~~SALTZER PTY LTD~~

~~Second Plaintiff~~

AND
Q PTY LTD
Third Plaintiff

AND
E PTY LTD
Fourth Plaintiff

AND
W PTY LTD
Fifth Plaintiff

AND
V PTY LTD
Sixth Plaintiff

AND
MS PACEK
Defendant

#...07

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

BETWEEN
H PTY LTD
First Plaintiff

AND
Q PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff

AND
E PTY LTD
Third Plaintiff

AND
V PTY LTD
Fourth Plaintiff

AND
MS PACEK
Defendant

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

30 SEPTEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –
1.The adjournment application is 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

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 Pacek & Saltzer (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Pacek & Saltzer (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 666
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 666
Decision Date: 30 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Pacek brought proceedings against Mr Saltzer, and multiple associated companies, in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Ms Pacek sought an adjournment of a hearing in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, scheduled for 30 September 2024. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to grant an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further discovery of documents and time to respond to the evidence.

The court dismissed the adjournment application. The court found that Ms Pacek had sufficient time to respond to the evidence and had not demonstrated that she needed more time to prepare her response. The court also found that there was no need for further discovery of documents as the documents in question had already been disclosed. The court concluded that the application for an adjournment was an abuse of process and that granting an adjournment would be inappropriate.

The court dismissed the adjournment application and ordered that the hearing proceed as scheduled on 30 September 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 2954 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND

MR SALTZER

Respondent

MLC 7293 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS PACEK

Applicant

AND

MR SALTZER

First Respondent

AND

H PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Respondent

AND

W PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

AND

V PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

AND

E PTY LTD

Sixth Respondent

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Seventh Respondent

#...78

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

SALTZER PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

W PTY LTD

Fifth Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Sixth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

#...07

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

BETWEEN

H PTY LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

Q PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

E PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

V PTY LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

AND

MS PACEK

Defendant

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

30 SEPTEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT –

1. The adjournment application is 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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number	MLC 2954 of 2020
MLC 7293 of 2024
#...78
#...07
Judgment of	WILSON J
Date of judgment	30 September 2024
Catchwords	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by the respondent for an adjournment of the hearing on 30 September 2024 – adjournment application dismissed.
Division	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs	3
Date of last submission	30 September 2024
Date of hearing	30 September 2024
Place	Melbourne
In MLC 2954 of 2020
Counsel for the applicant	Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the applicant	ISAKOW Lawyers
Counsel for the respondent	Litigant in person
In MLC 7293 of 2024
Counsel for the applicant	Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the applicant	ISAKOW Lawyers
Counsel for the respondent	Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman
Solicitor for the respondent	J and K Law
In #...78
Counsel for the plaintiffs	Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the plaintiffs	ISAKOW Lawyers
Counsel for the defendant	Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman
Solicitor for the defendant	J and K Law
In #...07
Counsel for the plaintiffs	Mr I. Coleman SC with Mr G. Thompson and Mr W. Newland
Solicitor for the plaintiffs	ISAKOW Lawyers
Counsel for the defendant	Mr L. Magowan with Mr D. Kaufman
Solicitor for the defendant	J and K Law

MLC 2954 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN	MS PACEK Applicant
AND	MR SALTZER Respondent

MLC 7293 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN	MS PACEK Applicant
AND	MR SALTZER First Respondent
AND	H PTY LTD Second Respondent
AND	Q PTY LTD Third Respondent
AND	W PTY LTD Fourth Respondent
AND	V PTY LTD Fifth Respondent
AND	E PTY LTD Sixth Respondent
AND	SALTZER PTY LTD Seventh Respondent

#...78
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
BETWEEN	H PTY LTD First Plaintiff
~~AND~~	~~SALTZER PTY LTD~~ ~~Second Plaintiff~~
AND	Q PTY LTD Third Plaintiff
AND	E PTY LTD Fourth Plaintiff
AND	W PTY LTD Fifth Plaintiff
AND	V PTY LTD Sixth Plaintiff
AND	MS PACEK Defendant

#...07
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
BETWEEN	H PTY LTD First Plaintiff
AND	Q PTY LTD Second Plaintiff
AND	E PTY LTD Third Plaintiff
AND	V PTY LTD Fourth Plaintiff
AND	MS PACEK Defendant

ORDER MADE BY	WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER	30 SEPTEMBER 2024