Simplot and Deene

In the Family Court of Australia, before Justice Cronin, the matter of Simplot and Deene concerned an application by the father (Mr Simplot) against the mother (Ms Deene). The Independent Children's Lawyer was Mr Eidelsen. The dispute involved proceedings that had been ongoing since 2007, with significant prior judicial criticism directed at the solicitor then acting for the respondent.

The court was required to determine whether to allow the applicant to proceed on an undefended basis, given the respondent's and her legal representative's failure to appear at a scheduled management hearing and their non-compliance with previous court orders. A key issue was the conduct of the respondent's solicitor, who had a history of late and inappropriate document filings and had failed to attend the hearing despite indicating an intention to do so.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the court could not be held to ransom by the conduct of a solicitor or a party. Having regard to the history of the case, including previous criticism by Justice Dessau of the respondent's solicitor, it was deemed inappropriate to further delay the applicant's entitlement to proceed. The court noted that the respondent's solicitor had filed a document electronically just minutes before the hearing, contrary to court orders.

Consequently, the court made orders granting the father leave to proceed on an undefended basis, subject to any contrary order by the trial judge on 7 June 2013. All applications for final orders were adjourned for hearing before Justice Cronin on that date, with evidence in chief to be given by affidavit. The applicant was directed to file and serve affidavits by 31 May 2013, and a copy of the order was to be served on Michael Reid Legal. The costs of the father for that day were reserved, and it was certified that engaging counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer was reasonable.