REEVES and REEVES

[2025] FCWA 83

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: REEVES and REEVES [2025] FCWA 83

CORAM: O'BRIEN J

HEARD: [REDACTED]

DELIVERED : 4 APRIL 2025

FILE NO/S: 211 of 2022

BETWEEN: MR REEVES

Applicant

AND

MS REEVES

Respondent

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Self Represented Litigant - Where the proceedings commenced by the husband are listed for trial to commence in [month] 2025 – Where a hearing was listed of the court's own motion to ensure that the husband was aware of various matters relevant to the trial process – Where the purpose of the hearing was to meet the court’s obligation to the husband as a self-represented litigant well in advance of the trial, so as to ensure procedural fairness – Where the husband declined to participate in the hearing, and the explanations and information the court had intended to provide to him could not be conveyed – Where the court considers it appropriate to provide that information and those explanations in the form of these reasons to ensure that the husband has been afforded every opportunity to make informed decisions as to his ongoing participation in the proceedings, and understands the consequences of certain actions he has foreshadowed

Legislation:

Family Law Act (1975) Cth

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	[Solicitor A]
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	[Solicitor B]

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	[Law Firm A]
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	[Law Firm B]

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

[2024] FCWA 301

[2024] FCWA 312

Hamod v State of New South Wales and Anor [2011] NSWCA 375

Re F: Litigants in person guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

WORDS IN SQUARE BACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Reeves and Reeves has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

This copy of the Court's Reason for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)) or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

1The parenting and financial proceedings commenced by [Mr Reeves] ("the husband") and responded to by [Ms Reeves] ("the wife") are listed for a trial before me in [Regional Circuit A] [in] [month] 2025. The difficult history of the proceedings to date has been noted in judgments previously published by Justice Cohen and is familiar to the parties in any event.[1]

[1] [2024] FCWA 312; [2024] FCWA 301.

2The husband is presently self-represented. To ensure the listed trial proceeds in a manner that is procedurally fair, and to meet my obligations to him as a self-represented litigant,[2] a hearing was listed [in] [month] 2025 to enable me to provide him with information, and explain various issues, well in advance of the trial.

[2] Re F: Litigants in person guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072.

3Orders were made by me in chambers [in] February 2025 to that end. It was only in those orders that the parties were advised of the listing [in] [month] 2025 and that it would be before me. The orders expressly gave the husband permission to participate in the hearing by telephone.

4When the Court was able to reach the husband,[3] he initially professed to be unaware of the listing, or for that matter that the substantive proceedings were still on foot, and unaware of the purpose of the Court making contact with him. That was disingenuous in circumstances where the order [from] February 2025, specifically listing the hearing before me and granting him leave to participate in the hearing by telephone, was accessed by him on the morning of [the day after the order was made].

[3] After several attempts were unsuccessful and the Court's calls were diverted directly to voicemail.

5The husband similarly professed to be unaware that the proceedings were later listed for trial, when that was also expressly noted in the orders [from] February 2025 that he had accessed. This trial date was also noted in the previous orders made by Chief Judge Sutherland [in] December 2024 and a subsequent letter sent to the parties [in late] December 2024, both of which the husband had accessed the same day they were published.

6During the hearing, I confirmed for the husband that the trial is listed to commence in Regional Circuit A [in] [month] 2025. He indicated in fairly colourful terms that he does not have time for, nor does he intend to participate in, the proceedings in this Court, which were commenced by his own application. He specifically referenced the arrangements for the children of the marriage, [Child A], born [in] 2014 and [Child B], born [in] 2016, while maintaining the position he had earlier expressed that those arrangements would not change and that he does not seek any parenting orders. I reminded him that he has an application on foot seeking orders for alteration of property interests.

7I explained also that the hearing [in] [month] 2025 had been listed primarily for his benefit, and to ensure that I could meet my obligation to him as a self-represented litigant and place him in a position to make informed decisions for himself.[4]

[4] As to which, see Hamod v State of New South Wales and Anor [2011] NSWCA 375.

8[Mr Reeves] then terminated the call. The information and explanations I had intended to give him during the hearing were not able to be conveyed.

9Accordingly, I determined to take the somewhat unusual step of conveying those matters to him in this judgment, so that notwithstanding his actions during the hearing [in] [month] 2025, he will have been provided with the relevant information and explanations well in advance of the listed trial.

10There are a number of matters appropriately to be raised.

The relief sought by the husband - the financial case

11The most recent indication, in a formal sense at least, of the relief sought by the husband is contained in his Further Amended Form 1 Initiating Application filed [in] [month] 2024. In one part of that document, the orders proposed are in the following terms (produced verbatim)[5]:

1.50/50 split of [the matrimonial home in Suburb A].

2.Spousal maintenance paid by [Ms Reeves] to [Mr Reeves].

3.Withdrawal and complete dismissal of any childrens orders.

4.Dismissal of ICL.

[5] Throughout these reasons, where documents are quoted, they are quoted verbatim and any errors are as they appear in the original document.

12The document also made it clear that the husband did not intend to seek any parenting orders.

13Elsewhere in the same document, the orders earlier sought are repeated in the following terms and expressed to be sought on a final basis (produced verbatim):

1.There be a 50/50 division of the matrimonial property such that the Applicant receives 50% of the net assets and the Respondent receives 50% of the net asset.

2.The respondent [Ms Reeves] shall pay spousal maintenance to the applicant [Mr Reeves] of $500 per week indexed at 2% in line with the respondents increase at the beginning of February every year. The applicant's income does not meet the needs to care for the children in the previous manner and is in need of immediate financial redress to assist the children. This shall be backdated to commencement of the 50/50 care of the children beginning of April 2022.

14The document went on to seek orders for the "immediate dismissal" of the then appointed Independent Children's Lawyer [Solicitor C]. It is unnecessary to detail that matter further, as Solicitor C is no longer appointed in the matter.

15Thus, on the face of the one document, there is confusion as to just what orders for alteration of property interests the husband seeks. The matrimonial home is not the only significant asset owned by the parties or either of them. In one part of the document the husband appears to be seeking an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, and the equal division between the parties of the net proceeds of sale. In the other part of the document, he appears to be seeking a broader albeit unspecified equal division of the totality of the property of the parties or either of them.

16Prior to the husband discontinuing his participation in the hearing [in] [month] 2025, I had intended to draw those matters to his attention and seek to clarify just what final orders he would seek.

17I had also intended to remind him that the orders made [in] February 2025, which he has accessed, require each party to file and serve an up-to-date Minute of the proposed final orders they seek by no later than 4.00 pm on [a date in] [month] 2025. If, as I perceive, the Further Amended Form 1 Initiating Application filed [in] [month] 2024 does not accurately reflect the orders he seeks at trial, he will need to comply with that order and file an up-to-date Minute by [a date in] [month] 2025.

The relief sought by the parties – the parenting case

18As already noted, the documents most recently filed by the husband indicate that he does not propose to seek any orders about the parenting arrangements for Child A and Child B. If in fact he wishes to seek parenting orders, he will need to address that in the Minute to be filed by [a date in] [month] 2025.

19Prior to the husband discontinuing his participation in the hearing [in] [month] 2025, I had intended to draw that, and another matter, to his attention.

20The most recent indication of the final orders to be sought by the wife is contained in a Minute of Proposed Final Orders filed by her [in] February 2024. In that Minute, she says that she seeks equal shared parental responsibility, and that the children live with her and spend time with the husband each alternate weekend from after school Friday until 5.00 pm on Sunday. She otherwise seeks various arrangements for school holidays, special occasions, and a range of specific issues orders.

21The husband needs to be aware that simply by refusing to seek any parenting orders himself, he cannot preclude the wife from pursuing the parenting orders she seeks. In that sense, his statements at various times that the current parenting orders simply will not change, or that the parenting proceedings in this Court are over, are wrong.

22If the husband seeks to have any say in the orders to be made by this Court in relation to the children, he will need to comply with the order already referred to by filing a Minute of Proposed Orders, and comply with the further orders made [in] February 2025, which require the parties to file updating trial affidavits and an affidavit of each witness by no later than [a date in] [month] 2025. As matters presently stand, absent that compliance the husband would have no current evidence before the Court in relation to the parenting case.

23Were that situation to continue to trial, that would work significantly to the disadvantage of the husband even if the only outcome he seeks is that no parenting orders be made.

The cross-examination ban

24By an order made [in] September 2024 at a hearing in which the husband participated, Cohen J noted that the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") apply in these proceedings. The published orders made that day set out clearly that:

(a)neither party is permitted to cross-examine the other party personally;

(b)any cross-examination of either party must only be conducted by a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the other party;

(c)the parties have available to them the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme; and

(d)a copy of the orders made would be provided by the Court to Legal Aid Western Australia, which administers that scheme, and which would also be advised that both parties were unrepresented at that time.

25The attachment to the published orders contained all necessary information required by the parties to ensure that they knew the steps they had to take to apply for assistance under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. The husband accessed those published orders on 25 September 2024.

26Thus, the husband is clearly aware that any cross-examination of the wife at trial may only be conducted by a lawyer on his behalf, and he is also aware of the availability of the scheme which will provide a lawyer for him free of charge.

27At this point, the husband has not sought to access the scheme. He has expressed the view that he does not intend to cross-examine the wife and that accordingly there is no need for him to access the scheme.

28Before the husband discontinued his participation in the hearing [in] [month] 2025, I had intended to explain to him the matters which are now set out below.

29Cross-examination is central to the trial process. It has more than one purpose.

30The first purpose of cross-examination is to elicit information concerning relevant facts or issues that is favourable to the person on whose behalf the cross-examination is conducted. The second purpose of cross-examination is to cast doubt upon the accuracy of the evidence given by the other party.[6]

[6] J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 11^th ed, 2017), 17,430.

31In the husband's case, therefore, cross-examination of the wife would serve two purposes - to seek to extract information or concessions from the wife that are helpful to his case, and to cast doubt on evidence given by her which is unhelpful to his case. Both functions are important. Neither will happen if the wife is not cross-examined on behalf of the husband.

32Accordingly, if the husband chooses to put himself in a position where the wife cannot be cross-examined on his behalf, that may well put him at a serious disadvantage at trial.

33The husband cannot rely in that regard on the wife being cross‑examined by the Independent Children's Lawyer, even in relation to the parenting case. The Independent Children's Lawyer will not in any circumstance direct cross-examination to the financial case.

34If the husband wishes the wife to be cross-examined at trial, he will have to engage a lawyer either privately or by accessing the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. If he chooses to access the scheme, he simply needs to contact Legal Aid Western Australia as previously advised.

35If the husband chooses to take that step, he needs to do it within the next week or two to maximise the possibility of a lawyer being assigned to him in advance of trial.

36If the husband does not choose to privately engage a lawyer and chooses not to apply for assistance under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, he will not be permitted to cross-examine the wife at trial. He must also understand that in those circumstances it is almost certain that the trial will proceed as scheduled if he either makes the choice just described, or delays making any application for assistance under the Scheme beyond the next couple of weeks. On the information presently available, and acknowledging that further relevant information may become available, it is unlikely that any application by the husband for the trial to be vacated or adjourned would succeed.

37Had the husband continued to participate in the hearing [in] [month] 2025, I had intended to urge him to make the relevant application under the Scheme urgently, to give himself the best possible chance of having a lawyer assigned to him for the purposes of trial, so that the wife can be cross-examined and his case can be presented in the best possible way. He will clearly be at a disadvantage if he does not.

Participation in the trial

38I also take this opportunity to make it clear to the husband that if he chooses not to attend in person at the trial, which is listed to commence at 10.00 am [in] [month] 2025 at the Regional Circuit A Courthouse, then the trial will continue in his absence.

39The husband will not be permitted to participate in the trial by telephone.

40It is possible that, if he makes the appropriate application to the Court in a timely fashion by filing a Form 2 Application and supporting affidavit, the husband might be permitted to participate in the trial by video link if the balance of convenience favours that over his personal attendance in Regional Circuit A.

41The husband must understand however that the usual course is that parties are required to attend in person at the trial of their matter. I appreciate that the husband has commitments, including to the care of the children, and that personal attendance at trial would cause him some inconvenience; frankly, that is one of the reasons that the trial has been listed to take place in Regional Circuit A rather than in Perth. Almost all litigants experience some level of inconvenience by having to attend court. The husband might also bear in mind that the court proceedings were commenced by him.

42I also make it clear to the husband that if he chooses not to participate in the trial, and it continues therefore on an undefended basis, none of the affidavit material he has filed to date, nor any affidavit material he might choose to file between now and trial, will be received into evidence for the purposes of trial. In those circumstances, the only evidence upon which the Court will be able to base its decision will be that adduced at trial by the wife and by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

43Those matters having been addressed, the only order made at the conclusion of the hearing [in] [month] 2025 (by which time the husband had ended the telephone call by which he was participating in the hearing) was:

1.The proceedings stand adjourned to the trial already listed in the [Regional Circuit A] [in] [month] 2025 at 10.00 am, unless a Status Hearing is listed of the presiding Judge's own motion prior to trial.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.

RM

Associate

4 APRIL 2025