Rimac & Rimac (No. 4) - [2021] FamCA 266

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rimac & Rimac (No. 4) [2021] FamCA 266

File number(s): SYC 1540 of 2014

Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ

Date of judgment: 4 May 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where an Application for an adjournment is made on the second day of hearing – Application dismissed.

Number of paragraphs: 7

Date of hearing: 4 May 2021

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Livingstone

Solicitor for the Applicant: Taylor

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Rimac, with leave of the Court
ORDERS

SYC 1540 of 2014

BETWEEN:
MS RIMAC

Applicant

AND:
MR RIMAC

Respondent

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rimac & Rimac has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McClelland DCJ:

This decision concerns a further Application by Mr Rimac (“the husband”) for an adjournment of the final hearing of the Application for Final Orders filed by Ms Rimac (“the wife”). This Application is made on the second day of final hearing, and in circumstances where I gave reasons for rejecting an adjournment application yesterday ([2021] FamCA 263). I have since been advised by Mr C Rimac, the husband’s brother representing him in these proceedings, that the husband was admitted to the K Hospital last night. I have not been provided with any medical evidence setting out the basis of that admission. I have been provided with an account by Mr C Rimac that the circumstances were due to stress.
In the decision that I gave yesterday, I set out the extensive history of this matter since the matter was initially listed for call over before me on 2 March 2020 ([4]–[11]). It was listed for call over in the context where it had been in the pool of matters awaiting allocation of a hearing date in the Sydney Registry of this Court for a considerable period of time. I set out the circumstances whereby I indulged the husband by adjourning the proceedings for final hearing commencing yesterday, 3 May 2021, to provide time for him to get on top of what were asserted to be health issues. I believe that period has been entirely reasonable.
In determining and identifying what was an appropriate period of time for an adjournment of the final hearing of these proceedings, I made allowance for the fact that it would be necessary for the husband to retain legal advisers. It is clear that he only took steps to engage legal advisors very close to the impending hearing date and that such representation was not practicable.
This Court is a court that is…

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.

Continue reading Rimac & Rimac (No. 4)

Details

AGLC: Rimac & Rimac (No. 4) [2021] FamCA 266
Case: [2021] FamCA 266
Decision Date: 4 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Rimac & Rimac (No. 4)*, heard in the Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms. Rimac, sought an adjournment of proceedings on the second day of the hearing. The respondent was Mr. Rimac.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicant's application for an adjournment of the hearing.

McClelland DCJ dismissed the application for adjournment. The Court applied the principles governing adjournments, which require a party seeking an adjournment to demonstrate a compelling reason for the delay and that the adjournment would not cause prejudice to the other party or the administration of justice. In this instance, the application was made late in the proceedings and without sufficient justification, leading to its refusal.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 1540 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MS RIMAC

Applicant

AND:

MR RIMAC

Respondent

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYC 1540 of 2014
Judgment of:	MCCLELLAND DCJ
Date of judgment:	4 May 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where an Application for an adjournment is made on the second day of hearing – Application dismissed.
Number of paragraphs:	7
Date of hearing:	4 May 2021
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Livingstone
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Taylor
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr C Rimac, with leave of the Court