Pranata & Pranata - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1663

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Pranata & Pranata [2022] FedCFamC2F 1663

File number(s): CAC 1432 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE

Date of judgment: 10 November 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW- Property – capacity to conduct proceedings – discharge order appointing a Litigation Guardian

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s102NA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r.3.15

Cases cited:
Forster v Forster (2013) 47 Fam LR 77

L v The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2006) 233 ALR 432

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 10 November 2022

Solicitor for the Applicant Self-represented by her Litigation Guardian, Ms Jayadi

Solicitor for the Respondent Prudential Legal Solutions

ORDERS

CAC 1432 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS PRANATA BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN, MS JAYADI
Applicant

AND:
MR PRANATA
Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

10 NOVEmber 2022

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Litigation Guardian for the Applicant made a series of very serious complaints (including claims of criminal and/or negligent conduct) against the Australian Federal Police and the Husband’s lawyer. The Litigation Guardian also claims there is government interference in the matter;
B.The Litigation Guardian for the Applicant has consulted 40 or 50 different lawyers, whose advice is said to be relatively consistent. In the Court’s view, to consult so many lawyers (on this fact alone) indicates the significant difficulty for the Litigation Guardian to adequately engage in the processes of the Court;
C.The Litigation Guardian for the Applicant confirmed it is a matter for the Court whether or not she remains as the Litigation Guardian; and
D.The s102NA Order made 21 March 2022 precluding the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant from cross-examination will be amended to preclude the Applicant from cross-examination. It is requested the solicitor for the Respondent assist the Applicant to notify Legal Aid ACT of this change; accordingly,

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 1 of the Orders dated 3^rd March 2021, appointing Ms Jayadi as the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant, be discharged.
2.Orders 1 and 2 of the Orders dated 21^st March 2022 be amended such that the Applicant is precluded from directly cross-examining the other parties. The self-represented Applicant is directed forthwith to attend upon the office of the Legal Aid Commission to apply for representation for the Final Hearing so that cross-examination, if it is to occur, is via a legal representative.
3.The Application in a Proceeding filed 7^th November 2022 (which makes the allegations noted above and set out further in the reasons of the Court) by the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant be dismissed.
4.The matter be listed for Final Hearing on 10^th March 2023 commencing at 10:00am in CANBERRA.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS IN CHAMBERS THAT:
5.Evidence in chief at the Hearing be by way of Affidavit. Oral evidence in chief will only…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pranata & Pranata and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1663
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2, the case of Pranata & Pranata was presided over by Judge W J Neville. The matter involves a property dispute between Ms Pranata, represented by her Litigation Guardian Ms Jayadi, and Mr Pranata. The court was required to decide on the capacity of the Litigation Guardian to conduct the proceedings and whether she should be discharged. The court also needed to consider the appropriate procedures for the Applicant to follow in the event of a final hearing.

The court concluded that the Litigation Guardian, Ms Jayadi, was not adequately engaging in the court processes due to her consultations with numerous lawyers and the making of unsubstantiated claims. The court found that these factors indicated significant difficulty for Ms Jayadi to adequately engage in the proceedings. Therefore, the court decided to discharge Ms Jayadi as the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant. In addition, the court amended the previous order precluding the Litigation Guardian from cross-examination to preclude the Applicant from cross-examination directly. The Applicant was directed to apply for representation for the final hearing, so that cross-examination, if it is to occur, is via a legal representative. The court also dismissed the Application in a Proceeding filed by the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant.

The court made several orders, including discharging the order appointing Ms Jayadi as the Litigation Guardian for the Applicant and amending previous orders to preclude the Applicant from directly cross-examining the other parties. The court listed the matter for a final hearing on 10th March 2023 and provided detailed procedural directions for the parties to follow in preparation for the hearing.

Orders