Shoretsky and Shoretsky

In *Shoretsky & Shoretsky*, Mr Shoretsky applied to the Family Court of Australia for his parenting matter to be expedited. The dispute concerned parenting orders for the parties' three children, who lived with their mother, Ms Shoretsky. Mr Shoretsky had not had contact with the children since the parties' separation in May 2011. The matter had previously been before the Federal Circuit Court on multiple occasions, with delays attributed partly to Ms Shoretsky's failure to file responding material and partly to adjournments for various reasons, including the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and the transfer of the case to the Family Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Shoretsky's application to expedite the hearing should be granted. This required the Court to consider the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Rules 2004*, specifically Rule 12.10A, which outlines the criteria for expediting a case. These criteria include considerations such as the age, physical or mental health of a party or witness, allegations of family violence or abuse, financial hardship, and the potential loss of purpose if the case is not heard quickly. The Court also had to consider the paramount consideration of the children's welfare and whether granting priority would cause prejudice to other litigants.

Justice Cronin refused the application for expedition. His Honour noted that while the husband had not seen his children since separation, there was nothing in his affidavit to demonstrate the urgency of the case beyond this fact. The family report recommended that the husband's time with the children be "reserved," a term his Honour found unclear but which suggested no contact should occur at that time. The report also raised significant concerns about family violence and the husband's mental health, which contrasted sharply with the husband's own evidence. His Honour found that the husband needed to address the issues raised in the family report, and that the urgency lay in his personal circumstances rather than the litigation itself. Furthermore, expediting the case would prejudice other litigants whose matters required the Court's finite resources.

Consequently, the application to expedite the case was dismissed. The Court ordered that the wife file and serve a response by a specified date, and all outstanding applications were adjourned to a date to be fixed for trial. The Court also noted that comprehensive reasons for the refusal of the priority application would be provided.