PALMER & RHODES

[2015] FCCA 2853

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PALMER & RHODES [2015] FCCA 2853

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure – non-compliance with rules.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.4.03(2), 6.19(a)

Applicant: MR PALMER

Respondent: MS RHODES

File Number: MLC 7579 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 7 October 2015

Date of Last Submission: 7 October 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 7 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Grant

Solicitors for the Applicant: CE Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Dellidis

Solicitors for the Respondent: Farrell Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That this proceeding is adjourned to 2 November 2015 at 9:45am for mention in the duty list.

2. That the children X born (omitted) 2005 and Y born (omitted) 2007 spend from Wednesday to Sunday in the father’s care in week one and from Wednesday to Saturday in the father’s care in week two.

3. The father is to file a reply, financial statement and affidavit addressing the financial issues within 14 days of today.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Palmer & Rhodes is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 7579 of 2015

MR PALMER

Applicant

And

MS RHODES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This is the first return date of the father’s application for parenting orders.  His application was filed on 12 August 2015. He had sought that the matter be listed on an urgent basis.  That listing was refused, understandably, in the circumstances where this Court is incredibly under-resourced and overloaded with matters. Typically, a matter in this registry does not get given a first return date for up to three months. On any view, it is not an acceptable amount of time, particularly with respect to parenting matters. It is necessary for the Court to juggle a whole range of parenting matters, including parenting matters that, fortunately for this case, have much more serious issues of risk, violence, abuse and conflict and I say fortunately for this case in terms that these children are not faced with those difficulties.

3. I have had the benefit of practicing in Sydney and sitting regularly in the Northern Territory and South Australia in addition to sitting in Melbourne. I have to say, that in terms of the practice in Melbourne, it seems a chronic ongoing practice of legal practitioners in this Court having absolutely no regard for the court rules with respect to the filing and service of documents. There is an expectation that the Court will allow practitioners to rely on documents filed late, particularly in parenting matters, on the basis that to not allow that material in would somehow be contrary to the children’s best interests. To accede to that request would be…