Rollis and Rollis

[2018] FCCA 1860

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROLLIS & ROLLIS [2018] FCCA 1860

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for expedition – respondent’s lawyers consented by letter – no basis for expedition.

Applicant: MR ROLLIS

Respondent: MS ROLLIS

File Number: MLC 5829 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 2 July 2018

Date of Last Submission: 2 July 2018

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 2 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

The Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

1. The Application in a Case filed 2 May 2018 be dismissed.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.The matter remains listed for Mention Hearing on 14 February 2019 and Final Hearing commencing 17 June 2019 (with an estimated hearing duration of two days).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Rollis & Rollis is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 5829 of 2017

MR ROLLIS

Applicant

And

MS ROLLIS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application in a case filed on 2 May 2018.  The application was prepared by the husband who appeared in person in Court this morning.  The husband seeks an order changing the final hearing date which was set for 17 June 2019 and the mention date which is set for 14 February 2019 on the following basis.  This is the extent of the evidence that he has provided:

   This date is far too far ahead and I need it to be brought forward.  Because of my severe health conditions and living arrangements.  I am not living at my home [sic].

2. The husband, when he appeared this morning, handed up a letter from the wife’s lawyers indicating their consent to his application for expedition and their intention not to appear today.  It is not surprising that they consented to that, given that that would mean that the hearing would be brought forward.  However, as I pointed out to the husband and, indeed, I gave him the opportunity of seeing a duty lawyer by standing this matter down, what he states in his affidavit in no way addresses the issues that need to be addressed when a party is seeking an application for expedition.

3. It is now 4:45pm.  The husband has not appeared since the matter was mentioned this morning and the inquiries that chambers has made is that as far as chambers is aware, he has not made any contact with the duty services either.  As I indicated this morning, the application that the husband makes is seeking, in effect, to jump the queue.  There are many families who have to wait for many months for their trials and who would like their matters brought forward.

4. The hearing date was given on 3 March 2018.  The delay between that date and the trial date is no different than the dates given by this Court in many other matters in this docket and is typical of the kind of delay that is being experienced by parties who are seeking trial dates today.  Bringing a matter forward, expediting it, necessarily means displacing another family who has been in the system longer and who has a hearing date.  There needs to be justifying circumstances as to why that matter should be given preference to the other matters that are listed in the ordinary course of events.  It is not enough to simply say that the date is too far away. 

5. The Court accepts that it is difficult for parties to have their matters in a holding pattern because of the delays in Court.  The delays are across the Court and across the registries.  There are only so many hearing dates that the Court can allocate.  There are circumstances where a Court will grant expedition and list a matter for an urgent hearing, but there need to be circumstances set out in detail that would justify doing so.  The application does not touch on any of those matters and, therefore, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Harland

Date: 11 July 2018