Taylor-Black and Vasser (No. 2)

[2008] FamCA 1253

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAYLOR-BLACK & VASSER (NO. 2) [2008] FamCA 1253

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment application – Denied

APPLICANT: Mr Taylor-Black

RESPONDENT: Ms Vasser

FILE NUMBER: SYC 200 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 28 April 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 28 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Hausman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ross A. Clarke & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Stewart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mother in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Orders

1. Leave is granted to Mr Stewart of counsel to appear on behalf of the mother in order that he might make an adjournment application.  

2. Leave is granted to the mother to make an oral application for an adjournment application.

3. The application for an adjournment is dismissed. 

4. Mr Stewart is granted leave to withdraw. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Taylor-Black & Vasser is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 200 of 2007

MR TAYLOR-BLACK

Applicant

And

MS VASSER

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the mother, represented by Mr Stewart, this morning again makes an application for an adjournment. 

2. On 18 April 2008 the mother made a prior oral application for an adjournment of this hearing based upon the fact that her Legal Aid had been terminated and her solicitor had ceased to act for her earlier in that week.  My view then was that the matter should not be adjourned and that the mother should use the time between then and now to prepare for the presentation of her case. 

3. The mother was provided by 11.30am on 18 April 2008, with a folder containing copies of the documents which would be the evidence before me at the hearing and a schedule of the documents to be tendered by the father.  She was advised to inspect documents to be tendered in the Exhibits section of the Registry between 18 April and today.  The mother was given a copy of the trial timetable. 

4. The mother had nine days from 18 April 2008 to prepare for her presentation at trial and the questions she sought to ask the father’s witnesses and Dr M. 

5. In support of today’s application for an adjournment, Mr Stewart says that it would be better, in a matter of this nature, if the mother was legally represented.  He says that the mother has told him that she might be able to cobble together some funds for legal representation if an adjournment of about one month is granted.  No evidence is led to provide a foundation for that submission and I have no basis to conclude that such a course is feasible.  So far as I know, the mother has done nothing, certainly since her previous lawyer ceased to act for her, to attempt to obtain alternate legal representation for the final hearing. 

6. The matter had been set down last year for a six day period.

7. It has again been set down for six days commencing today.  I do not have another six days in my diary for at least another four months.

8. As Ms Hausman has pointed out, in dealing with this application I have to have, as a very weighty factor in my mind, the best interests of the parties’ child.  There is a report of Dr M dated 31 August 2007 which is now going stale and the recommendations in that report about the child spending time with both parents are significantly different from what is the current situation. 

9. This case has an experienced independent children's lawyer who can, to some degree, act as a bulwark against deficiencies in the mother's cross-examination of the father's witnesses.  There has been significant preliminary work done on narrowing the issues in this case.  That work was done during a time when the mother was legally represented.  The issues in this case are of a fairly narrow compass and will turn on what factual findings are made.  From my involvement with the mother, I know the mother is an intelligent woman and I accept Ms Hausman’s proposition that she is more familiar than any of us in the courtroom, aside from perhaps the father, of the factual underpinnings that will be the subject of exploration during the final hearing.

10. I think it is important for the child that this matter be heard in the time which has now been allocated and, for those reasons, I do not allow the adjournment application.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts  

Associate:

Date:  28.4.2008