Paulo and Sheen
[2007] FMCAfam 667
•2 August 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PAULO & SHEEN | [2007] FMCAfam 667 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – change of venue. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.8.01 |
| Applicant: | MR PAULO |
| Respondent: | MS SHEEN |
| File number: | SYC3853 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Altobelli FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 August 2007 |
| Date of last submission: | 2 August 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 2 August 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | Self-represented |
| Respondent: | Self-represented |
ORDERS
The application to tranfer this matter to Federal Magistrates Court at Parramatta is dimissed.
The application for MS W to sit alongside the Respondent at the bar table and act as a Mackenzie friend of the Respondent is granted, as from the hearing of this matter.
Pursuant to section 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties attend a child dispute conference with a family consultant in this Registry on 20 September 2007 at 11am and pursuant to section 11C of the Act such conference be reportable.
The matter be adjourned to 4 October 2007 at 9.30am for final hearing.
Each party file and serve all affidavits on which they intend to rely at hearing by no later than 4.00pm on 28 September 2007. No further affidavits to be filed after that date without leave of this Court.
The Applicant pay the hearing fee or obtain a waiver of that fee at least 14 days prior to the hearing date.
NOTATIONS:
Ex tempore reasons for dismissing the application to transfer were delivered.
An oral application for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer was made by the applicant and dismissed. Ex tempore reasons were delivered.
An oral application was made by the Applicant for Federal Magistrate Altobelli to disqualify himself for apprehended bias. The Applicant was directed to file any such application and affidavit in support to be dealt with at the hearing.
An oral application was made by the applicant for a stay of the orders made today pending an appeal. There was no time to deal with the application
This matter came before the Court on a duty day.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Paulo & Sheen is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC3853 of 2007
| MR PAULO |
Applicant
And
| MS SHEEN |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ex tempore
In the response filed 12 July 2007 the respondent, Ms Sheen
Smith, seeks an order pursuant to r.8.01 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules that the proceedings be transferred to the Parramatta Registry.Rule 8.01 of those Rules deals with change of venue, and it gives to a party who files an application or response in a proceeding the right to apply for the proceeding to be heard in another Registry, and sub-r.(2) says that:
In considering the application the Court must have regard to:
(a) the convenience of the parties;
(b) the limiting of expense and the cost of the proceedings;
(c) whether the matter has been listed for final hearing; and
(d) any other relevant matter.
I note that r.8.01 gives to the relevant Judicial Officer a substantial discretion.
Ms Sheen
Smithhas filed an affidavit in this Court on 12 July 2007, and in that affidavit she sets out the reasons for seeking a change of venue, including the not insubstantial inconvenience from a practical perspective that is caused to her. She lives in the Blacktown local Government area, she is the primary carer of the two young children, and it causes inconvenience and disruption, and I acknowledge the inconvenience that it would cause to the respondent.The reason for declining the application is a very very practical one. After reading the material, and having the opportunity to discuss it with both the applicant and respondent, the impression I formed is that it is a very narrow issue. The evidence that is before me, I think, identifies clearly the issues that both the applicant and the respondent will raise.
In the Sydney Registry of the Federal Magistrates' Court, and particularly in my docket just at this stage, it is possible for matters that are relatively discrete in nature to be dealt with quickly, and I know as a fact that there is no way that if I referred the parties to Parramatta that it could be dealt with as quickly as it could be if it stays in this docket.
The parties have been ordered to attend a child dispute conference on 20 September, and it is certainly my hope that that might help clarify the issues. If the matter does not settle then within a matter of two weeks the matter can be heard before me.
So having regard to the discretion that is granted to me under r.8.01, having regard to the issues that appear on the face of this case, and also having regard to my availability and capacity to deal with this issue quickly, I have decided to decline the application.
I have observed that the application relates to the parties' child, P, who is 10 years old, and it sounds like the parties have been in litigation in relation to P for quite some time. It is not in P's interests that any further litigation be prolonged. It is better that the issues be identified and dealt with as quickly as possible, and I recognise – and again, I acknowledge the inconvenience that that causes the mother - but my task is to make a decision that is in the best interests of P.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Altobelli FM
Associate: Lisa Molloy
Date: 5 September 2007
0
0
1