Gregor & Gregor [2025] FedCFamC1F 812 (30 October 2025)

with such Subpoenas to be returnable on 10 November 2025 and to be served by close of business today.

1. If any party wishes to rely on any further evidence, they are to serve a draft affidavit on or before 7 November 2025 on the other party and the Independent Children's Lawyer with the question of whether leave will be granted to rely on the material to be dealt with at the final hearing.

1. The respondent is at liberty to bring an oral application on the first day of the final hearing to vacate the hearing dates should he wish.

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 Gregor & Gregor has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This matter has been provisionally fixed for hearing in Darwin commencing on 10 November 2025. I accept that the parties have had short notice of these dates, but they were raised by Judge Liveris, who has previously had the care and control of this matter in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in Darwin until his Honour made interim orders in it yesterday, by at least 22 October 2025.
2. The availability of the date has come about somewhat by happenstance in that a matter in Division 1 fixed to be heard in Darwin that week settled and the date became free. It is most unlikely that a Division 1 judge will be available until well into next year to come to Darwin to conduct the hearing if it does not take place in November this year.
3. The parties are in the fortunate position, having just conducted an interim hearing, that they have the benefit of a fresh Family Report and psychological reports. Subject to something which I will cover in a moment, the evidence is essentially up to date.
4. The difficulty with the dates arises because the solicitor for the father is currently on holidays and will be returning to Darwin early on the morning of 11 November 2025. His counsel of choice is unavailable, apparently, on 12 and 14 November 2025. No other counsel is apparently available, somewhat surprisingly it seems. In any event, he says he cannot possibly be ready to run a final hearing, although he has accepted, quite properly, that he would be able to conduct an interim hearing with cross-examination. With the greatest of respect, I really do not understand the difference between those two positions. If he can do one, he can do the other.
5. However, the most important factor in this case is the best interests of the children. According to the Family Report, the children are intelligent, happy children who have been doing very well both at school and in their ordinary lives, but are now starting to feel very badly the emotional and psychological effects of the dispute between their parents, which is causing harm to their emotional and psychological state.
6. It is no answer to that to say that there is no prejudice to the children if the hearing date is delayed until next year because there has recently been an interim hearing. That was an interim hearing and did not solve the dispute between the parties which will necessarily continue until final orders are made. These children, and indeed the parties, need some stability in life and not more uncertainty.
7. What then is the prejudice to the father whose material is essentially ready to run? It is just a question of representation.
8. There is one matter to which I said I would return which is the evidence being complete. The solicitor for the mother has outlined six Subpoenas she wishes to issue and has foreshadowed seeking to rely on further evidence of some complexity and difficulty. That of course is a two-edged sword because if the material is new to the father and he does not have an appropriate opportunity to respond to it, a further application for an adjournment may well be inevitable and could well be successful.
9. What I propose to do is, without prejudice to the father to bring another application to vacate the hearing date in Darwin, to proceed with the hearing but to start at 2.00 pm on 11 November 2025 which would seem to give the solicitor for the father some time to find his feet and also leaves time to complete the hearing. I note the experts are all available to give evidence which is a fortunate happenstance.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge.