Rahman and Rahman (No 3)

[2011] FamCA 888

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRMRA

RAHMAN & RAHMAN (NO 3) [2011] FamCA 888

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – application for adjournment of hearing dates due to unavailability of counsel in a part heard hearing

Family Law Act (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Rahman

RESPONDENT: Mr Rahman

FILE NUMBER: SYF 4548 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 16 November 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Cairns

PLACE HEARD: Cairns  

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE
(in chambers, no parties present): 16 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Jordan Djunda

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: H.K. Husseini & Co

Orders

1. The wife’s Application in a Case filed 16 November 2011 for vacation of the hearing dates of 21 and 22 November 2011 be dismissed.

2. Transcripts of the hearing on 12 and 13 October 2011 be released to the parties.

3. Leave granted to the wife to make a further application in the event she asserts that further events lead to her being prejudiced in the presentation of her case.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rahman & Rahman (No 3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRMRA AT CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER:  SYF 4548 of 2006

Ms Rahman

Applicant

And

Mr Rahman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The wife has made another application in this case for hearing dates to be vacated. The application is opposed by the husband.  The wife has had hearing dates in this matter vacated on a prior occasion.

2. The matter was part heard on 12 and 13 October 2011 and is further set for hearing on 21 and 22 November 2011. 

3. The solicitor for the wife, an experienced practitioner, has filed an affidavit indicating that the wife’s counsel, Mr Peter J Webb, commenced a criminal trial on 7 November 2011. The trial was scheduled to conclude this Friday, but it is now expected it will run into next week.

4. It would seem implicit in what the wife’s solicitor has said that counsel for the wife took a considerable risk in commencing a two week criminal trial in circumstances where he was part heard in the Family Court on the working day after the expiration of the estimated time for the conclusion of the criminal trial.

5. Counsel for the wife says he is unable to now attend on 21 and 22 November 2011.

6. Given the history of this matter and the unavailability of any future dates until some time next year, it is incumbent upon the lawyers for the wife to make alternate arrangements.

7. In order to assist any alternate counsel or in fact Mr Jordan himself prepare to conclude the wife’s case, I am prepared to provide transcripts of the first two days of the evidence.

8. At the very minimum, counsel for the wife, in my view, has an obligation to assist the solicitor for the wife and/or alternate counsel to prepare for the continuation of the hearing.

9. I will grant leave to the wife to make a further application in the event she asserts that further events lead to her being prejudiced in the presentation of her case

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 16 November 2011.

Associate:

Date: 16.11.2011