Papp and Myers (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 825

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAPP & MYERS (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 825

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother sought an adjournment application for a final hearing – where the mother had a grant of legal aid – grant termination – where the mother has altered legal representation on a number of occasions – where the final hearing was less than one month away – where there was an expert report which would go stale if the Application was granted – Application dismissed.

Aon Risk Services Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27

APPLICANT:

Mr Papp

RESPONDENT:

Ms Myers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

JLM Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

5372

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

31 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Harper J

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr White SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Michael Conley Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Manning Solicitor Advocate

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Manning Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Newland

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

JLM Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

The Application in a Case seeking an adjournment of Final Hearing dates on 27 and 28 November 2019 and filed on 29 October 2019 be dismissed.
The time for the Respondent Mother to file and serve her trial affidavit be extended up to and including the close of Registry filing on 15 November 2019.
The listing date 11 November 2019 for compliance check be vacated.
The matter be listed on 18 November 2019 at 10:00am for a compliance check.

Notations

The Final Hearing dates of 27 and 28 November 2019 are confirmed.
Application may be made by any party to appear by telephone on 18 November 2019.

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 Papp & Myers 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5372 of 2018

Mr Papp

Applicant

And

Ms Myers

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are oral reasons for judgment in proceedings SYC 5372 of 2018. These are parenting proceedings as presently constituted, concerning the child X, born in 2015 (“the child”). The parenting aspect of the proceedings is currently listed for final hearing on 27 and 28 November 2019.
The matter came before me on 14 August 2019, on which occasion the respondent mother appeared for herself. During the course of a lengthy mention the mother applied for an adjournment of the proposed final…

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 Papp and Myers (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Papp and Myers (No 2) [2019] FamCA 825
Case: [2019] FamCA 825
Decision Date: 31 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Papp and Myers (No 2)*, Harper J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the Respondent Mother seeking an adjournment of final hearing dates scheduled for 27 and 28 November 2019. The application was filed on 29 October 2019.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Respondent Mother had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an adjournment of the final hearing. This involved assessing the reasons provided for the requested delay against the court's general principles regarding the efficient conduct of litigation and the need to avoid undue prejudice to the parties.

Harper J dismissed the application for adjournment, finding that the grounds presented were not compelling enough to justify disrupting the already scheduled final hearing. The court reasoned that the Respondent Mother had not adequately explained the delay in filing her trial affidavit and that granting the adjournment would likely cause prejudice to the Applicant Father. However, the court did grant an extension for the Respondent Mother to file and serve her trial affidavit, setting a new deadline of 15 November 2019. The court also vacated a previously scheduled compliance check on 11 November 2019 and relisted the matter for a compliance check on 18 November 2019, confirming the final hearing dates.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in a Case seeking an adjournment of Final Hearing dates on 27 and 28 November 2019 and filed on 29 October 2019 be dismissed.

The time for the Respondent Mother to file and serve her trial affidavit be extended up to and including the close of Registry filing on 15 November 2019.

The listing date 11 November 2019 for compliance check be vacated.

The matter be listed on 18 November 2019 at 10:00am for a compliance check.

Notations

The Final Hearing dates of 27 and 28 November 2019 are confirmed.

Application may be made by any party to appear by telephone on 18 November 2019.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.