Soglia and Soglia (No 2)

[2018] FamCA 706

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOGLIA & SOGLIA (NO 2) [2018] FamCA 706

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – where Counsel for the Applicant granted leave to withdraw from the balance of proceedings – where the Applicant then terminates instructions of her solicitor and appears unrepresented – where the unrepresented Applicant makes an oral application for an adjournment of the trial – where the proceedings are adjourned to a date to be advised.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where leave is granted to the Applicant to inspect documents produced under subpoena – where the Respondent has leave to inspect documents produced under subpoena in respect of which there is no claim for legal professional privilege – where the Applicant shall prepare a list of those documents in respect of which privilege is claimed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

APPLICANT: Ms Soglia

RESPONDENT: Mr Soglia

FILE NUMBER: SYC 8323 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 10 September 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J

HEARING DATE: 10 September 2018

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Friedlander of Counsel; then Mr Moylan, solicitor; and then the Applicant in person on her own behalf (with the assistance of an interpreter)

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Moylan, Moylan Family Law until his  instructions were terminated by the Applicant

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr O’Connor

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Redmond Hale Simpson

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Applicant’s legal representatives have leave to inspect the documents produced under Subpoena directed to D Lawyers.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. The documents in respect of which privilege is claimed on behalf of the Applicant (being documents contained within the file from D Lawyers produced pursuant to Subpoena) be placed into an envelope and marked as being documents in respect of which privilege is claimed.

2. The Respondent’s legal representatives have leave to inspect those documents produced by D Lawyers in respect of which there is no claim for legal professional privilege.

3. The Applicant prepare a list of documents in respect of which privilege is claimed.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. Counsel for the Applicant has leave to withdraw from the balance of the proceedings.

AND THEN UPON HEARING Mr Moylan, Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant and Mr O’Connor of Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. His instructions having been terminated by the Applicant, Mr Moylan has leave to withdraw from the balance of the proceedings.

AND THEN UPON HEARING the Applicant appearing in person on her own behalf and Mr O’Connor of Counsel on behalf of the Respondent AND UPON CONSIDERING the Applicant’s oral application for an adjournment of the trial

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be advised.

IT IS NOTED

(A)The Court today provided the Applicant with an explanation about process and procedure in discharge of the obligations imposed by Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072.

(B)The Applicant was assisted by the presence of an interpreter.

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 Soglia & Soglia (No. 2) 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 8323 of 2015

Ms Soglia

Applicant

And

Mr Soglia

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I do not intend to accede to any Application that I adjourn the hearing to permit the filing of an Application for leave to appeal against the decision I have made declining to accede to the Application for an adjournment.  I consider that to accede to such Application would have the effect, in essence, of causing an adjournment of the hearing.  I do not consider that proper in the circumstances.  Any asserted error can be the subject of any appeal against final orders made in the matter. 

2. In this matter, there is an Application for an adjournment by the Applicant, Ms Soglia, who appears now in person on her own behalf.

3. I have reflected significantly upon the submissions made by Mr O’Connor in opposition to that Application - coming, as it does, in the context of the events of today. 

4. Whilst I accept that a number of his submissions are certainly well-founded, I am persuaded that, in the exercise of discretion, the appropriate course in order to accord justice as between the parties is to grant the Application for an adjournment. 

5. I had given consideration to Mr O’Connor’s submission that the matter could be stood over to tomorrow, which would have afforded to Ms Soglia time overnight to prepare so that she could discharge the obligations of representing herself as a litigant in person in the proceedings.  However, having reflected upon the fact that she is a person who is not legally qualified, she is a person who has participated in the proceedings at all times with the benefit of legal representation until late this afternoon, and the nature of the dispute as between the parties, I have reached the decision that it is unlikely that standing the matter down overnight would afford to her the appropriate time within which to prepare to act on her own behalf, as opposed to undertaking the role of a party and witness in one’s own case.

6. For those reasons, and not without significant reluctance and certainly discomfort in the sense that public money has, in my view, been wasted, I am, on balance, minded to, as I have said, grant the adjournment. 

7. I had investigated, when stood down, whether there is any possibility in this Registry of obtaining a specific date so that I could provide the parties with that certainty, but I am told that that is not a possibility in Sydney. 

8. The order adjourning the proceeding will record, though, that I have today provided Ms Soglia with an explanation, consistent with my obligations in Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072, so that all will know, at the adjourned hearing of the matter, that there can be no doubt that, in the event she remains unrepresented and is required to discharge the duties and/or rights of a litigant in person, she will have been afforded the benefit of that explanation and the time within which to act upon it, if she so chooses.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan delivered on 10 September 2018.

Associate: 

Date:              12 September 2018