Rimac & Rimac (No. 4)
[2021] FamCA 266
•4 May 2021
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 entrusted by the people of Australia to adjudicate disputes between citizens in respect of very sensitive matters, namely issues relating to the breakdown of their relationships. The ability of this Court to fulfil its functions cannot be determined by the will of any particular citizen. In other words, the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction cannot be vetoed by the unreasonable acts of a citizen.
In circumstances where I have set out the steps that this Court has taken to accommodate the husband, and in circumstances where the Supreme Court has determined that he is capable of managing his own affairs (see Re R [2014] NSWSC 1810), and that the husband has repeatedly stated that he is capable of managing his own affairs and does not require the appointment of a litigation guardian, there is, in my view, no reason that has been presented to this Court as to why the hearing of this matter should not be finalised this week.
All citizens have a right to have their matter litigated before the Court and their matters resolved in a timely manner. The Applicant, that is, the wife, has been delayed in respect to that desire in order to accommodate the husband.
I am satisfied that the husband has been given every opportunity to properly present his case this week. Insofar as he is being represented by his brother, which is entirely as a result of the decisions made by the husband, and where no information has been provided to me which satisfies me that the hearing this week is unable to proceed until finality, I accordingly reject and dismiss the further oral application for adjournment of this hearing.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice McClelland. Associate:
Dated: 4 May 2021
0
2
0