SCVG and KLD
[2017] FamCA 720
•3 July 2017
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SCVG & KLD | [2017] FamCA 720 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Registrar – Review of decision |
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.06, 5.06, 18.10
| APPLICANT: | Mr SCVG |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms KLD |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 4380 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 3 July 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| PLACE HEARD: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Gill J |
| HEARING DATE: | 3 July 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | In Chambers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | In Chambers |
Orders
The application filed by Mr SCVG on 29 June 2017 to attend by telephone on 4 July 2017 is refused and dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym SCVG & KLD has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 4380 of 2008
| Mr SCVG |
Applicant
And
| Ms KLD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A review has been sought of the Registrar’s decision to decline permission for Mr SCVG to attend a Court event by telephone on 4 July 2017. That decision was made on 28 June 2017 following a request made by Mr SCVG on 25 June 2017 that he be allowed to attend by telephone.
The nature of the review means that the matter is to be determined as an original hearing pursuant to Rule 18.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004.
It should firstly be noted that the event for which Mr SCVG seeks permission to attend by telephone is for the assessment of costs following a preliminary assessment made by the Registrar.
Requests to attend by telephone are made pursuant to Rule 5.06. Pursuant to Rule 5.06(2) Mr SCVG is, before making a request, required to ask any other party whether that party agrees or objects to the use of electronic communication. I inferred by virtue of Part E of Mr SCVG’s request to attend by electronic communication that he has done so.
Pursuant to Rule 5.06(3) the request to attend by electronic communication must:
(a) Be in writing. Mr SCVG has complied with this.
(b) Be made at least seven days before the date fixed for the hearing. Mr SCVG, by his application dated 25 June 2017, complied with this.
(c) Set out the information required under subrule 16.05(3). This appears to have no application.
(d) Set out details of the notice in relation to the request that has been given to any other party. The extent such detail is contained at Part E of Mr SCVG’s request.
(e) State whether any other party agrees or objects to the request. There is no information as to whether or not an objection or agreement has been given and I infer that there has been neither agreement nor objection.
(f) State the expense to be incurred by using the electronic communication. This matter has not been addressed but does not seem to be of great consequence at least insofar as it relates to the direct expense of the communication itself.
Mr SCVG has sought that the matter be dealt with in the absence of the parties.
Rule 5.06(5) sets out a number of considerations that the Court may take into account.
(a) The distance between the party's residence and the place where the Court is to sit. The Court is to sit in Canberra. Mr SCVG lives in Sydney.
(b) Any difficulty the party has in attending because of illness or disability. No illness or disability has been set out. However, it is relevant to take into account the assertion made by Mr SCVG that he must be in Sydney to work on the day of the hearing.
(c) The expense associated with attending. This has not been raised.
(d) The expense to be incurred, or the savings to be made, by using the electronic communication. This matter has not been addressed
(e) Any concerns about security. This appears to have no application.
(f) Whether any other party objects to the request. It is unknown whether there is an objection to the request, there is certainly no material before me to suggest that an objection is taken.
In making a determination about this matter I must consider the main purpose of the Rules as set out at Rule 1.04 which is as follows:
The main purpose of these Rules is to ensure that each case is resolved in a just and timely manner at a cost to the parties and the court that is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
I bear in mind also that Rule 1.06 impresses upon the Court the need to minimise the need for the parties and their lawyers to attend Court.
In this case the nature the proceedings is an assessment for costs following a preliminary assessment. The matter is one which involves, or will potentially involve, some detailed assessment of the items to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of the costs. The matter has been estimated as being likely to run a substantial part of the day. There will be a need for the parties and the Registrar to identify and examine relevant matters within the material. It may also become necessary for the Registrar and the parties to examine material put forward in substantiation of the various claims for costs.
In order to promote a just and timely resolution, at a reasonable cost, in this instance requires the personal attendance of each party or their legal representative. This is necessitated by the likelihood that the parties will need to be able to descend to a significant degree of detail to deal with the appropriate assessment of costs. Such it is likely to be at least significantly difficult to undertake if one of the parties or legal representatives is to attend by telephone.
In this case the itemised cost account runs to approximately 37 pages and contains 186 items, as well as disbursements. The notice disputing, as filed by Mr SCVG, disputes a large proportion of the individual items. The costs award sought is in the sum of $77,677.45. By his response, Mr SCVG indicates that an amount of $16,053 should be allowed. In determining the matter it will likely be necessary to deal on a line by line basis with the significant number of disputes raised by Mr SCVG. There is potential for material to substantiate the claims being brought forth at the hearing of the matter. This is a task for which a telephone attendance is poorly adapted.
If such were to occur then there is significant potential for the adjournment of the hearing of the matter if Mr SCVG was not present.
Accordingly, bearing in mind the main purpose of the Rules I decline to grant permission to Mr SCVG to attend by telephone.
I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 3 July 2017
Associate:
Date: 3 July 2017
0
0