Sandford & Macy - [2022] FedCFamC1F 902

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Sandford & Macy [2022] FedCFamC1F 902

File number: SYC 5112 of 2015

Judgment of: CAMPTON J

Date of judgment: 11 November 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Proceedings on foot for more than seven years – Significant non-compliance with trial directions and orders of the Court – Proceedings listed on the Court’s own motion for submissions as to the possible striking out of the Initiating Application and Response pursuant to s 69 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth) – Parties’ conduct may be permissible under pirate code but is not under directions and rules of this Court

Legislation:
Family Law Act1975 (Cth) s 90SM

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth) ss 67, 68, 69

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ch 6

Cases cited: Jobson v Clarke [2021] QDC 320

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 27

Date of hearing: 11 November 2022

Place: Sydney

The Applicant: Litigant in person

The Respondent: Litigant in person
ORDERS

SYC 5112 of 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR SANDFORD

Applicant

AND:
MS MACY

Respondent

order made by:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The de facto husband have leave to make an oral application for an adjournment of the proceedings for a period of 18 months so as to permit the progression and conclusion of the tribunal proceedings in the UK relating to the sale of a real property, and implicitly for the final hearing currently listed in the Sydney Rolling List commencing on 6 March 2023 to be vacated.
2.The de facto husband’s oral application for an adjournment is dismissed.
3.The proceedings be listed before me at 4.00 pm on 22 November 2022, in person at the Sydney Registry of this Court, for the consideration on the Court’s own motion, of the Initiating Application of the de facto husband and the Response to an Initiating Application of the de facto wife and any amendments thereto, as to property adjustment pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) being struck out pursuant to s 69(3) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law…

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 Sandford & Macy

Details

AGLC: Sandford & Macy [2022] FedCFamC1F 902
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 902
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1, presided over by Justice Campton, heard a case involving a financial dispute between Mr Sandford and Ms Macy, who were in a de facto relationship. The proceedings began on 5 August 2015, with the respondent filing a response and an amended response on 19 October 2015 and 14 March 2016, respectively. The couple has a child born in 2013, and final consent orders regarding parenting arrangements were made on 3 November 2020. The case primarily concerns the adjustment of property arising from the termination of the de facto relationship.

The primary legal issues the Court had to decide were whether the proceedings should be struck out for the chronic non-compliance of the parties with the Court's orders and directions, and whether an adjournment should be granted for the applicant to pursue tribunal proceedings in the UK concerning the sale of a real property.

Justice Campton found that the parties' non-compliance with the Court's orders and directions was unacceptable and had resulted in a lack of evidence for the trial listed to commence on 6 March 2023. The Court emphasized its duty to conduct proceedings quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently, as outlined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). The Court also noted the applicant's lack of knowledge about the value of the UK property and the respondent's inability to articulate her relief or prepare her affidavit material due to the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure obligations. The Court dismissed the applicant's oral application for an 18-month adjournment, stating that the parties' conduct would not be tolerated and that the Court's directions are expectations that must be met to ensure the prompt disposition of proceedings.

The Court ordered the proceedings to be listed before it on 22 November 2022 at 4:00 pm for the consideration of striking out the Initiating Application and Amended Response to an Initiating Application. Both parties were directed to attend the Sydney Registry in person. The Court's decision highlights the importance of compliance with the Court's orders and directions and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders