Rana & Macaulay
[2023] FedCFamC1F 109
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Rana & Macaulay [2023] FedCFamC1F 109
File number(s): SYC 1198 of 2021 Judgment of: CHRISTIE J Date of judgment: 1 March 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – EXPEDITION – Where the matter has been listed for final hearing – Where the wife seeks an earlier hearing date – Where the application for expedition is not opposed - Where expedition is granted but the Court may not be able to accommodate earlier hearing dates. Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 11 Date of hearing: 23 February 2023 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Warda, Mills Oakley Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Frost, Nolan Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 1198 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS RANA
Applicant
AND: MR MACAULAY
Respondent
order made by:
CHRISTIE J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 march 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be expedited.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The matter is listed for a four day final hearing commencing 5 September 2023.
B.If earlier dates become available the matter will be listed on those dates provided that the parties can be given three weeks notice.
C.If earlier dates become available and three weeks notice is not possible the parties will be offered the dates.
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 the pseudonym Rana & Macaulay has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CHRISTIE J:
On 20 February 2023 the wife, Ms Rana, made an application for expedition of the final hearing of the parenting proceedings in this matter.
The husband, Mr Macaulay, who is the respondent to that application, did not oppose an order for expedition, noting that the granting or refusal of expedition was a matter for the Court.
Ms Rana’s application was supported by an affidavit affirmed by her on 16 February 2023. The wife also relied on a report by Ms B, her treating psychotherapist.
The parties had been involved in both financial and parenting proceedings but reached agreement in respect of financial matters which was made the subject of final consent orders on 23 February 2023.
The parents competing applications for parenting orders in respect of the child, X born 2017, remain before the Court. The proceedings were listed for final hearing for four days commencing 5 September 2023 at a Case Management Hearing on 17 October 2022.
As a consequence of the financial proceedings resolving, the parties are of the view that the matter will now require only three days of hearing time.
There are two apparent bases to the wife’s application for expedition namely:
(a)She seeks orders that would permit her to make X’s place of residence in Country D; and
(b)Her mental health is adversely affected by a lack of family support and difficult work circumstances in Australia.
THE LAW
The principles which apply to an application for expedition are as follows:
(a)A matter should be expedited if the facts and circumstances suggest that it has urgency;
(b)The urgency of the facts and circumstances in any individual case must be weighed against those of other matters awaiting determination;
(c)Even where a case is objectively urgent, the practical reality may be that it cannot be accommodated having regard to other competing case management priorities.
CONSIDERATION
As referred to above, the application was not opposed. It was necessary to make enquiries about the availability of other judges in the registry to hear and determine a three day matter. Unfortunately, at present, there is no judge available to hear the matter any sooner than the dates on which it is already allocated except at short notice if a matter resolves or is vacated.
The decision which I have reached is that the parties should be contacted if, because of changes to the judicial calendar (including the settlement of other matters currently listed before the Court) three days of hearing time become available before September 2023. In fact days became available while this decision was reserved but the parties were understandably unable to accept them due to conflicting commitments. This approach acknowledges that the case which the mother makes for urgency relies upon evidence from the mother and her therapist suggesting she is experiencing adverse mental health as a consequence of remaining in Australia for the purpose of having her hearing heard and determined.
Provided the Court can give the parties three weeks notice, all of the affidavit material for final hearing has been filed. Accordingly, the course which I propose to take is to allow the application for expedition but to note that the matter remains listed in September 2023, to take into account the fact that hearing time may not become available between now and the dates on which the matter is currently listed.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Christie. Associate:
Dated: 1 March 2023
0
0
0