Sampson and Hartnett (No. 4)

In the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, Ms Sampson (the wife) sought a review of a Registrar's order that had struck out her application for a change of venue. The original application, filed on 19 February 2007, sought to transfer proceedings instituted by Mr Hartnett (the husband) alleging contravention of interim parenting orders from the Sydney Registry to the Melbourne Registry.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's application for a change of venue should be granted. This required the court to consider various factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion, including the convenience of the parties, the limitation of expense and costs, the availability of the court, and any other relevant matters. The wife advanced several grounds in support of her application, including her desire to cross-examine witnesses, the potential need to call evidence from Victorian police officers, her financial circumstances, difficulties instructing solicitors from Geelong, the potential availability of legal aid in Victoria, and her ongoing need to breastfeed their young son. The husband responded by addressing each of these points, highlighting previous unsuccessful attempts by the wife to change venue, disputing her financial claims, and noting that a hearing date for the contravention application had already been fixed in Sydney.

Justice Moore dismissed the wife's application for review. While acknowledging the inconvenience and expense the wife would incur by travelling to Sydney, the court found that other matters raised in support of the venue change lacked substance. Specifically, the court found the claims regarding legal aid to be speculative and unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the court considered the delay that would necessarily result from transferring the proceedings to Melbourne to be an unreasonable outcome, particularly given the long-standing nature of the litigation and the fact that the contravention application was already scheduled for hearing in Sydney in approximately 15 days. The court concluded that the early disposal of this aspect of the litigation was in the best interests of the children involved, and that the fixed hearing date tipped the balance firmly in favour of the proceedings remaining in the Sydney Registry.