Pavlic & Pavlic - [2022] FedCFamC2F 513

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Pavlic & Pavlic [2022] FedCFamC2F 513

File number(s): MLC 6470 of 2020

Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ

Date of judgment: 21 April 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application to adjourn proceedings – Application to extend time to file material – Where the respondent’s solicitors have withdrawn their representation – Overarching purpose – Adjournment application dismissed – Application to extend time to file material granted – Costs reserved.

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 100

Cases cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Gadde & Gadde [2015] FamCA 617

Hart v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 50

Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 11

Date of hearing: 21 April 2022

Place: Sydney (via videolink)

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McIvor

Solicitor for the Applicant: Coote Family Lawyers

The Respondent: Self-represented litigant
ORDERS

MLC 6470 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PAVLIC

Applicant

AND:
MS PAVLIC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent’s application for an adjournment of the final hearing is dismissed and the matter remains listed for final hearing for three days, commencing 11.30 am on Tuesday 26 April 2022.
2.The period of time specified in Order (3) of the orders made on 21 February 2022 for the respondent to file material is extended until 4 pm on Monday 25 April 2022.
3.The issue of costs in relation to this hearing is reserved.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Court may consider any subsequent applications that may be necessary in the event of the applicant requiring more time to consider the respondent’s material.

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 a pseudonym Pavlic & Pavlic has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCLELLAND DCJ:

This matter has been listed before me today to consider an application by Ms Pavlic (“the respondent”) for an adjournment of next week’s proceedings listed between 26 and 28 April 2022. The proceedings were originally commenced by Mr Pavlic (“the applicant”) on 19 June 2020…

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 Pavlic & Pavlic

Details

AGLC: Pavlic & Pavlic [2022] FedCFamC2F 513
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 513
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application by Ms Pavlic for an adjournment of proceedings and an extension of time to file material in her property dispute with Mr Pavlic. The application was heard by McClelland DCJ in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's application for an adjournment should be granted and whether the respondent should be granted an extension of time to file her material.

The court found that the respondent's application for an adjournment was not justified as it did not promote the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions governing the exercise of the court's jurisdiction. The court considered the explanation for the adjournment, the detriment to the other parties, the detriment to other litigants in the court, and the parties' choices to date in the litigation. The court noted that the respondent had not satisfied it that there was a justifiable reason for the adjournment. However, the court found that the respondent should be entitled to an additional period of time to prepare her affidavit material due to the difficulties she had faced in dealing with her previous solicitors. The court granted the application for an extension of time to file material until 4 pm on Monday 25 April 2022. The issue of costs in relation to this hearing was reserved.

In summary, the court dismissed the respondent's application for an adjournment of the final hearing but granted the application to extend the time to file material. The court noted that the respondent's circumstances were regrettable but did not justify an adjournment when balanced against the interests of the business of the court generally and other litigants before the court. The court found that the respondent should be entitled to an additional period of time to prepare her affidavit material due to the difficulties she had faced in dealing with her previous solicitors. The court reserved the issue of costs in relation to this hearing.

Orders