Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University

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

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tevita & Tevita has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 2 June 2025, this matter was listed for trial for five days, for the determination of what final parenting arrangements are in the best interests of X born 2013 ("X") and Y born 2015 ("Y").
2. By way of Application in a Proceeding filed on 29 October 2025, Mr Tevita ("the father") sought an order that the final hearing, set down to commence on 1 December 2025, "be vacated and re-listed to a date before or after the week commencing 1 December 2025...".
3. The father, who is self-represented, wrote to chambers on 23 October 2025 with a request for directions in circumstances where he indicated "a conflict with a work commitment which looks to now fall on the same dates as the trial". The matter was listed for Case Management Hearing on 24 October 2025, during which:

(a) The matter was adjourned for interim hearing;

(b) Ms Tevita ("the mother") and the Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL") indicated their opposition to the final hearing being adjourned; and

(c) Orders were made requiring the father to file an Application in a Proceeding, and the mother, a Response to an Application in a Proceeding (which she did on 3 November 2025).

1. The interim hearing occurred on 5 November 2025, as listed, and I heard submissions from the father, from the ICL, and from the mother's solicitor on the mother's behalf. I thereafter reserved my decision with respect to the father's application for an adjournment.

1. The father relied upon his Application in a Proceeding and his affidavit filed on 29 October 2025 ("the father's affidavit") (and an annexure to that affidavit). I granted the father leave to provide, by 1.00 pm on 5 November 2025, any further documents which he sought to rely upon (to the Court, the mother, and the ICL). The father made two further documents available for consideration, as discussed below.
2. The mother relied upon her affidavit filed on 3 November 2025 ("the mother's affidavit") and her Response to Application in a Proceeding, wherein she sought orders as follows:
   1. The Application in a Proceeding, filed 28 October 2025 ("Application") of [Mr Tevita] ("Father") be dismissed.
   2. The Father attend the final hearing in person from 1 to 5 December 2025.
   3. In the event the Father fails to attend the final hearing in person from 1 to 5 December 2025, the Mother have leave to proceed on an undefended basis.
   4. Within 7 days the Father pay the Mother's costs in respect of and incidental to the Application in the fixed sum of $2,200.

1. In the father's affidavit, he deposes to his expected unavailability to attend the final hearing dates under a title, "Unavoidable work commitments clash with final hearing dates", as follows:
   1. I am responsible for a corporate finance transaction involving the public listing of a New Zealand company. As part of my professional role, I am required to be physically present in New Zealand at the time of the listing.
   2. The listing was originally scheduled for October 2025 but was delayed due to regulatory approvals outside my control, and it is now expected to occur around [...] December 2025, being [one of the days] of the final hearing. I will be required to be in New Zealand approximately the day before, the day of, and the day after the listing.
   3. The timing of the transaction and associated travel requirements are outside of my control. They are in the hands of the New Zealand Stock Exchange and NZ RegCo (NZ ASIC equivalent) who control these matters.

1. It was submitted on the mother's behalf, echoing the mother's affidavit at paragraphs 35 to 36 and 40 to 43, that the father's evidence was insufficient, lacked particularisation and that the asserted conflict caused by his work obligations on [...] December 2025, was not definite and only "expected to occur".
2. The father thereafter confirmed that since swearing his affidavit, the dates of his unavailability had been confirmed. A further document provided by the father (following the leave I granted, as above), titled "[B Ltd] Scheme Booklet" ("Scheme Booklet") (Exhibit 2) and to which I was directed, appears to confirm that the admission date "of [ B Pty Ltd] on NSX" is [...] December 2025. I also note that the Scheme Booklet is dated 31 October 2025, which I accept, post dates the swearing of the father's affidavit.
3. The father submitted that his unavailability on the dates of the currently listed final hearing is because of his "extraordinary work commitment", which is essential and cannot be delegated.
4. Nonetheless, the father's affidavit does not make clear the reasons why his attendance on [...] December 2025 is essential, and as submitted by the ICL and on behalf of the mother, the role of the father in any such transaction remains unknown, other than what is purported in the document annexed to the father's affidavit.
5. Annexed to the father's affidavit is a letter dated 29 October 2025 and addressed to "whom it may concern", where Mr C (the Chief Executive Officer of B Ltd) (Exhibit 1) asserts that:

(a) The father is engaged by B Ltd in a corporate advisory capacity in connection with a transaction involving the public listing of a New Zealand company;

(b) His responsibilities relate to the preparation, coordination and execution of various elements of the listing process and that his physical attendance is required; and

(c) His participation is essential and cannot be delegated.

1. The mother took issue with that letter (the mother's affidavit):
   1. As to Annexure 1, I have concerns as to the veracity of this document given it has been prepared by [Mr C]. [Mr C] is [Y's] godfather.
   2. [Mr C] is a close friend of [Mr Tevita] and has given as Affidavit in support of [Mr Tevita] in these proceedings, filed 22 August 2025.
   3. The letter does not give confirmation of the date of the public listing of the company or why it is necessary for [Mr Tevita] to be physically present in New Zealand at the time of the listing.
2. With the leave I granted the father (as above), providing him with an opportunity to corroborate his assertions, he provided the Scheme Booklet and another document being an ASX media release dated 30 October 2025 with respect to B Ltd (Exhibit 3). I understand from submissions made by the father that B Ltd is a company listed on the ASX, of which his friend Mr C is the CEO, and for whom the father provides business consultancy services (through another entity not owned by the father).
3. Those documents make clear that the company to which the father provides certain business advisory services is moving to a de-listing from the ASX and a listing on the NZX. The father asserts that his role in assisting that transition is central and that he cannot delegate his work to other staff. On that basis, the father says that he must be present in person, in New Zealand, on the dates the company is expected to list on the NZX and cannot attend some of the dates presently listed for the final hearing.
4. The father's central role in the work related to the listing in New Zealand is also expressed by the CEO of the company, Mr C, in the letter which became Exhibit 1. The father submitted that he had not appreciated that it might be necessary for him to obtain an affidavit from Mr C (rather than produce a letter from him), despite having Mr C as a deponent to an affidavit filed in the parenting proceedings on behalf of the father.

1. The matter was listed for final hearing on 2 June 2025 when the matter came before the court for a Compliance & Readiness Hearing. Trial directions were made, listing the matter for five days on 1 to 5 December 2025 and for the parties to file their trial affidavits on or before 22 August 2025. Both parties have complied with the trial directions to date.
2. The father is a self-represented litigant. I accept that the father has brought the conflict of his work commitments with the trial dates to the attention of the mother and the ICL upon him becoming aware of the likely clash of dates. He has acted appropriately in seeking the listing of the matter for further case management and filed his Application in a Proceeding as directed.
3. These proceedings concern the parties' two children, aged 12 and 10. The parties have been involved in family law litigation about the care of their children, since 16 June 2023. While delay in the final hearing progressing may most notably impact the father, given his current care of the older child is less than he seeks on a final basis, the mother and the ICL both submitted that any further delay in the resolution of the matter was inimical to the best interests of the children.
4. I have regard to the overarching purpose of family law litigation as set out in s 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which provides:

(1) The overarching purpose of the family law practice and procedure provisions is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes:

(a) in a way that ensures the safety of families and children; and

(b) in relation to proceedings under this Act in which the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration - in a way that promotes the best interests of the child; and

(c) according to law; and

(d) as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.

1. I am also required to have regard to the principles relating to the conduct of child related proceedings, as set out in s 102NE of the Act. Principle 1 requires the court to consider the needs of the child concerned and the impact that the conduct of the proceedings may have on the child in determining the conduct of the proceedings. Principle 2 requires the court to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings. Principle 3 directs that proceedings are to be conducted in a manner which safeguards the children and parties to the proceedings, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. Under Principle 4, the court is to ensure that the proceedings are, as far as possible, to be conducted in a way that promotes co-operative and child focussed parenting. Finally, Principle 5 requires the proceedings to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality and legal technicality and form, as possible.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the mother and the ICL that the interests of the children were best served by the final hearing proceeding on the dates currently allocated and if the father failed to attend, the mother sought that the hearing proceed on an undefended basis. However, in that event, and given the father's evidence that he could not attend in person or remotely because of his other commitments, the court will be faced with making final orders for these children with significant limitations to the evidence and certainly, without aspects of the evidence being tested.
3. I am conscious of the principles set out previously. In the case management of this matter, I weigh the competing benefits of the matter proceeding as quickly as possible, against the detriments of the matter proceeding without the input of an active and engaged parent.
4. There are complex issues at play in these proceedings concerning the children, including factors which may have impacted upon the apparent present difficulties in the relationship that the older child has with his father. The children have been interviewed by the single expert and have participated in family therapy with the parents. They have also met with the ICL. It is submitted and I accept, that they are aware of the proceedings and that it is submitted that further delay is contrary to their best interests in that context.
5. The single expert was available for the final hearing, and I am advised by the ICL (Exhibit 4) that there will be no financial penalty imposed upon the parents in the event the final hearing does not proceed on the presently listed dates.
6. I am mindful that the mother has also done all that was required of her to be ready for the final hearing and that her solicitor and counsel were available on the currently listed dates. There may be difficulties for the mother securing the availability of her advisors on future dates.
7. I also have regard to the public policy considerations which inform the assessment of applications of this nature. The resources of the court are limited and there is a clear public policy requirement to ensure that hearings occur in a timely manner. As the High Court, in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 at [5], has made clear:

In the proper exercise of the primary judge's discretion, the applications for adjournment and amendment were not to be considered solely by reference to whether any prejudice to Aon could be compensated by costs. Both the primary judge and the Court of Appeal should have taken into account that, whatever costs are ordered, there is an irreparable element of unfair prejudice in unnecessarily delaying proceedings. Moreover, the time of the court is a publicly funded resource. Inefficiencies in the use of that resource, arising from the vacation or adjournment of trials, are to be taken into account. So too is the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Given its nature, the circumstances in which it was sought, and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for seeking it, the amendment to ANU's statement of claim should not have been allowed. The discretion of the primary judge miscarried.

1. However, this is the first occasion on which the father has sought an adjournment of the final hearing dates, and it remains in the best interests of the children that both their parents are able to participate in the final hearing, through which final orders will be made about their living arrangements. I take into account that the father has complied with the filing directions made on 2 June 2025 and is not otherwise in breach of the directions made by the court.

1. I will accede to the father's application. The current final hearing dates will be vacated, and the matter will be listed for final hearing on dates to be advised. That is likely to be in the first quarter of 2026.
2. The mother sought her costs of and relating to the father's Application in a Proceeding. I will reserve the question of the mother's costs to the final hearing.

I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Simpson.