Ward and Ward (Adjournment) - [2016] FamCA 827

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WARD & WARD (ADJOURNMENT)

[2016] FamCA 827

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – where the father’s application for an adjournment dismissed – father’s application for an adjournment was on compassionate grounds – where father travelled to Adelaide to be with his terminally ill father – where the father’s oral submissions relied upon a desire to obtain legal representation – where father’s refusal to avail himself for a short adjournment to participate from the Adelaide Registry weighs against an adjournment – where the trial will not proceed undefended

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79ZN

AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390 at 395
Elgin & Elgin [2015] FamCAFC 155
Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 67 ALJR 841 at 843

Forster & Forster [2014] FamCAFC 88

APPLICANT:

Mr Ward

RESPONDENT:

Ms Ward

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Sinclair

FILE NUMBER:

CSC

260

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

29 September 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Cairns

PLACE HEARD:

Cairns

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Jacobs

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Cuthbertson & Co Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER:	Ms Dart
SOLICITORS FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER:	Sandra Sinclair Lawyers

Orders

The father’s Application in a Case filed 15 September 2016 is 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 Ward & Ward 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 CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: CSC 260/2013

Mr Ward

Applicant

And

Ms Ward

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 18 May 2016, I directed that this matter be listed for trial in either the September or November 2016 sittings of the Family Court of Australia in Cairns, with an estimated hearing time of eight days. Subsequently the matter was listed to commence on 19 September 2016. On 15 September 2016 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking to adjourn the looming trial. On 19 September 2016 I dismissed that application for reasons to be given in due course. These are those reasons.

BACKGROUND FACTS

These proceedings commenced as long ago as February 2014, when the mother filed an Initiating Application seeking parenting orders in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In due course they were listed for trial, and on 23 March 2015 Judge Scarlett made final orders by consent, which provided for the eldest child to live week about between the parents, and for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ward and Ward (Adjournment)

Details

AGLC: Ward and Ward (Adjournment) [2016] FamCA 827
Case: [2016] FamCA 827
Decision Date: 29 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ward and Ward (Adjournment)*, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father for an adjournment of proceedings. The specific nature of the underlying dispute between the parties, beyond the father's request for an adjournment, is not detailed in the provided text.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father's application for an adjournment should be granted. This required the court to consider the appropriate principles governing adjournments in family law proceedings, particularly in circumstances where a party seeks to delay the resolution of the matter.

Tree J dismissed the father's application for an adjournment. While the precise reasoning is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court found insufficient grounds to grant the requested delay. The father's Application in a Case filed on 15 September 2016 was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father’s Application in a Case filed 15 September 2016 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.