Taffa and Taffa

[2013] FamCAFC 139

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TAFFA & TAFFA [2013] FamCAFC 139

FAMILY LAW – APPLICATION IN APPEAL – ADJOURNMENT – Where the appellant wife applied to adjourn the hearing of the appeal in order to obtain legal representation for the hearing of the appeal in circumstances where the appeal was otherwise ready for hearing – Adjournment of two months granted.

APPELLANT: Mrs Taffa

RESPONDENT: Mr Taffa

FILE NUMBER: SYF 5067 of 2000

APPEAL NUMBER: EA 46 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 6 September 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Finn, Strickland & Ryan JJ

HEARING DATE: 6 September 2013

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 13 March 2012

LOWER COURT MNC: [2012] FamCA 181

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr O’Dowd

Orders

1. That the hearing date for the appeal of 4 October 2013 be vacated. 

2. The appeal be set for hearing on Monday, 2 December 2013.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Taffa & Taffa has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

Appeal Number: EA46 of 2012
File Number: SYF 5067 of 2000

Mrs Taffa

Appellant

And

Mr Taffa

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FINN J:

1. We have before us this morning an application by Mrs Taffa, to whom I will refer as the “wife”, seeking that we should adjourn the hearing of her appeal currently listed for 4 October 2013. 

2. The appeal is against orders made by Le Poer Trench J on 13 March 2012.

   
   

   The effect of his Honour’s orders was to stay the wife’s application for property orders and lump sum maintenance.  There was an alternate order that dismissed an application by the wife to commence such proceedings out of time. 

3. The wife filed a notice of appeal, as I understand, within time.  The appeal books were then filed, and summaries of argument were filed by her and also by the respondent husband, Mr Taffa. 

4. On 25 August this year, the wife wrote to the appeal registrar explaining that she had been refused legal aid for the hearing date of the appeal, which as I said, was set for 4 October 2013, and explaining to the registrar that she wanted to have that decision by legal aid reviewed, and if she was unsuccessful on the review, she would be looking for pro bono legal representation.  She has also this morning put before us a letter from a doctor and some accompanying medical records which explain that she has had an accident and she will “be unfit for her usual duties from 5^th September to 5^th October 2013 inclusive.”  That letter is dated 5 September 2013.

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. The application for the adjournment of the appeal has been opposed by

   
   

   Mr O’Dowd on behalf of the husband. 

2. Essentially, Mr O’Dowd has pointed to the long history of the proceedings in this Court between these parties.  Apparently the proceedings date back to 2000, and Mr O’Dowd submits that his client would want the matters between the parties to be finally determined.  That is an understandable position.  Mr O’Dowd, in his submissions, has sought to persuade us that the delay has been on the part of the wife.  The wife has sought to contradict that. As I said during today’s hearing, we do not need to determine for present purposes where that fault lies.

3. As I have also indicated in the course of discussions this morning, we are not unsympathetic to the wife’s situation. It has been the practice of this Full Court to grant persons, who have otherwise progressed their appeal, but then find at the eleventh hour, so to speak, that they need to find new legal representation to argue their appeal, a short indulgence for that purpose. The lists of the Full Court are such that we could move this matter from 4 October to 2 December 2013 and that is what I propose we should do.

STRICKLAND J:

1. I agree with the orders proposed by the presiding judge and the reasons for those orders.

RYAN J: 

1. For the reasons given by Justice Finn, I agree with the orders she proposes.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court delivered on 6 September 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  10 September 2013.