Richards and Richards

In parenting proceedings before the Family Court of Australia, Mr Richards (the applicant) sought a priority hearing, with Ms Richards (the respondent) largely supporting this application. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was also involved. The dispute concerned the parenting arrangements for the parties' three children, who were aged 9, 7, and 6 at the commencement of proceedings in February 2010.

The court was required to determine whether the application for a priority hearing should be granted. This involved considering whether there were relevant circumstances justifying the court giving priority to this matter over other cases, as contemplated by Rule 12.10A of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess if there was prejudice, delay, hardship to a party or child, or the potential for serious emotional or psychological trauma to be avoided by an expedited trial.

Justice Cronin reasoned that while the parties had a history of difficulties and were attending professional appointments, there was no indication of prejudice or delay. Furthermore, no hardship was being caused to the applicant, nor was any child at risk of physical or emotional harm. The court noted that the parties had consented to final orders in May 2010, which were therapy-based, and that a contravention application filed in May 2012 remained extant. Despite the complexity and dysfunctional nature of the arrangements, the court found that the parties were pursuing a pathway of professional assistance, with appointments scheduled for February 2013. The judge considered it more appropriate for the parties to present their cases in evidentiary form after obtaining expert reports, rather than seeking expedition before such reports were available.

Consequently, the application for a priority hearing was refused.