Peusen & Belo (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 729 (16 October 2025)

1. Mr Natanail of Counsel is referred to the Queensland Legal Services Commission for it to consider any relevant investigations and disciplinary action that may arise with respect to counsel being briefed to appear in a four-day trial before this court when also being briefed in a matter in another court.
2. The name of Counsel who is the subject of the referral is to be redacted from these reasons for judgment dated 16 October 2025, prior to any public dissemination.
3. The Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) is directed to send a copy of the following documents to the Queensland Legal Services Commission:

(a) Trial directions made by Justice Baumann on 28 November 2024;

(b) Trial directions made by Justice Curran on 5 February 2025;

(c) The Application in a Proceeding dated 18 March 2025 filed by the Respondent Mother seeking to adjourn the final hearing in April 2025;

(d) The reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 21 March 2025 dismissing the application to adjourn the final hearing;

(e) Transcript of proceedings on 16 April 2025;

(f) Orders made on 16 April 2025;

(g) Orders made on 4 July 2025;

(h) The affidavit of Mr Natanail filed 12 August 2025;

(i) The reasons for judgment accompanying these orders; and

(j) These orders.

1. The covering letter sent by the Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) to the Queensland Legal Services Commission should state only the following:

At the direction of the Honourable Justice Curran please find a copy of the following documents:

1. Trial directions made by Justice Baumann on 28 November 2024;
2. Trial directions made by Justice Curran on 5 February 2025;
3. The Application in a Proceeding dated 18 March 2025 filed by the Respondent Mother seeking to adjourn the final hearing in April;
4. The reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 21 March 2025 dismissing the application to adjourn the final hearing;
5. Transcript of proceedings on 16 April 2025 ;
6. Orders made on 16 April 2025;
7. Orders made on 4 July 2025;
8. The affidavit of Mr Natanail dated 12 August 2025;
9. The reasons for judgment accompanying these orders; and
10. These orders dated 16 October 2025.

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

1. These reasons for judgment concern the conduct of counsel who appeared for the respondent mother in proceedings for which final judgement was delivered on 16 October 2025. This arises from a series of events commencing on 16 April 2025, in what ought to have been the last two days of a four-day final parenting and property trial.
2. The matter was adjourned on the morning of the third day of a four-day final hearing on 16 April 2025, following the Court being advised that the mother's counsel was unavailable due to ill health. The Court was then advised by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") that counsel for the mother was appearing part-heard before another judge in another court at 10.00 am seeking an adjournment of those proceedings due to his ill health.
3. For the reasons that follow, these reasons for judgment should be provided to the Queensland Legal Services Commission for consideration as to the conduct of counsel in these proceedings.

1. The father in these proceedings filed an Initiating Application seeking final parenting orders on 23 December 2022 in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ("FCFCOA"). The mother filed a Response to an Initiating Application seeking both parenting and property orders. The matter was transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) on 22 August 2024. Trial directions were made by Justice Baumann on 28 November 2024. These orders listed the matter for a four-day final hearing to commence on 14 April 2025. Further trial directions were made on 5 February 2025.
2. The mother filed an Application in a Proceeding on 18 March 2025, seeking for the final hearing dates to be adjourned. The adjournment application was heard and determined on 21 March 2025. Mr Natanail, counsel for the mother, appeared at the application seeking to vacate the final trial on 21 March 2025.
3. Orders were made dismissing the application and extending the time for the mother to comply with the trial directions. Ex-tempore reasons for dismissing the adjournment application were delivered orally on 21 March 2025. At that time, Mr Natanail was aware the trial was listed on 14 April 2025 for four days.
4. The final hearing commenced on 14 April 2025 at 10.00 am and was listed to continue until 17 April 2025. Each party including the ICL had briefed counsel. Two expert witnesses were scheduled to give evidence on 16 April and 17 April 2025.
5. Mr O'Shaughnessy, the mother's solicitor, emailed chambers on the morning of 16 April 2025 at 8.52 am to inform the Court that Mr Natanail had experienced a medical episode shortly after the matter had adjourned the day prior.
6. The correspondence from the mother's solicitor advised that Mr Natanail was still feeling unwell and proposed the following three options to the Court:

(a) To adjourn the matter until Thursday, 17 April 2025;

(b) For Mr Natanail to attend via Microsoft Teams on 16 April 2025; or

(c) To commence at a later start time on 16 April 2025 to allow Mr Natanail additional time to recover.

1. The matter commenced at 10.15 am on 16 April 2025, at the request of Mr George, counsel for the ICL.
2. Mr Natanail did not appear at 10.15 am on 16 April 2025. Mr O'Shaughnessy advised the Court that he was told that Mr Natanail would be able to attend the proceedings via Microsoft Teams, and requested a start time of 12.00 pm.
3. Mr George informed the Court that Mr Natanail had appeared as counsel in another part-heard matter before a different court that morning at 10.00 am by AVL. He had sought an adjournment of those part-heard proceedings due to his ill health.
4. What is clear is that Mr Natanail had been briefed to appear in two matters which were both listed at 10.00 am on 16 April 2025. He did not advise this Court of that fact.
5. An AVL link was emailed to Mr Natanail to join the proceedings to continue the final hearing at the scheduled time of 12.00 pm.
6. The trial resumed at 12.00 pm to continue the cross examination of the mother. Upon resuming the matter at 12.00 pm, Mr O'Shaughnessy informed the Court that several minutes before the trial resumed, Mr Natanail had experienced another medical event and was now not able to appear at 12.00 pm via AVL. Mr O'Shaughnessy made an oral application before the Court to adjourn the proceedings. The adjournment was granted.
7. On 16 April 2025, I made orders and directions as follows:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Final hearing adjourned

1. The final hearing date listed on 17 April 2025 be vacated.

2. The matter be adjourned, part heard, to 10.00am on 1 and 2 September 2025.

3. Not later than 4.00pm on 30 April 2025, [Mr Natanail], counsel appearing for the respondent mother, is to file and serve an affidavit setting out with particularity:

1. The circumstances of his medical illness/event causing his inability to appear before the Court on 16 April 2025, including any relevant medical certificates/documents.

2. The circumstances surrounding [Mr Natanail] having a brief to appear in final hearings in two Courts on 16 April 2025.

3. Not later than 4.00pm on **30 April 2025, [**Mr Natanail], counsel appearing for the respondent mother, is to forward to my chambers any written submissions as to why the matter should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner for referral to the Queensland Bar Association.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. The father filed an application for final orders on 23 December 2022.

2. Trial directions were made by Justice Baumann on 28 November 2024. These Orders listed the matter for a four-day final hearing to commence on 14 April 2025.

3. Further trial directions were made by me on 5 February 2025 after case management hearing.

4. The mother filed an Application in a Proceeding on 18 March 2025, seeking for the final hearing dates to be adjourned.

5. The adjournment application was heard and determined before me on 21 March 2025. [Mr Natanail], counsel for the mother, appeared at the interim proceedings on 21 March 2025.

6. Orders were made dismissing the application and extending the time for the mother to comply with the trial directions.

7. My reasons for dismissing the adjournment application were delivered ex tempore on 21 March 2025.

8. The final hearing before me commenced on 14 April 2025 at 10.00am and was listed to continue until 17 April 2025. Each party including the ICL had briefed counsel. Two expert witnesses were scheduled to give evidence on 16 April and 17 April 2025.

9. Mr O'Shaughnessy, the respondent mother's solicitor, emailed Chambers on the morning of 16 April 2025 at 8.52am to inform the Court that [Mr Natanail] had experienced a medical episode shortly after the matter had adjourned the day prior. The correspondence advised that [Mr Natanail] was still feeling unwell and proposed the following three options before the Court:

   1. To adjourn the matter until Thursday 17 April 2025;
   2. For [Mr Natanail] to attend via teams on 16 April 2025; or
   3. To commence at a later start time, to allow [Mr Natanail] additional time to recover.

10. The matter commenced at 10.15am on 16 April 2025, at the request of Mr George, counsel for the ICL.

11. [Mr Natanail] did not appear at 10.15am on 16 April 2025.

12. Mr O'Shaughnessy advised the court that he was told that [Mr Natanail] would be able to attend the proceedings via Microsoft Teams and requested a start time of 12.00pm.

13. Mr George informed the Court that [Mr Natanail] was appearing as counsel in another matter before a different Court that was part heard, and that he had appeared that morning at 10.00am by AVL before that judge and sought an adjournment of the part heard proceedings due to his medical episode.

14. My chambers emailed the AVL link to [Mr Natanail], to join the proceedings to continue the trial at the scheduled time of 12.00pm.

15. The trial resumed at 12.00pm to continue the cross examination of the mother.

16. Upon resuming the matter at 12.00pm, Mr O'Shaughnessy informed the Court that several minutes before the trial resumed [Mr Natanail] had experienced another medical event and was not able to appear.

17. Mr O'Shaughnessy made an oral application before the Court to adjourn the proceedings. The adjournment was granted. Costs thrown away were reserved.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

Transcript

1. The transcript of the proceedings from 14, 15 and 16 April 2025 will be ordered and then tendered into evidence by the Court as an exhibit and thereafter released to the parties.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. An oral application was made by counsel for the father for the transcript to be provided.

2. In the circumstances where the matter has had three interim determinations, it is unclear who will continue to appear, the mother will remain under cross examination during the adjourned period, and the matter involves a young child where there have been numerous changes to his live with and spend time with orders - it is in the interests of justice for the transcript to be obtained, to form part of the evidence and to be made available to the parties. The transcript will be made an exhibit and thereafter provided to the parties to ensure no further delay and to ensure the mother's legal representatives are prepared to conclude the trial on the next occasion.

3. The mother remains under cross examination; she cannot discuss her evidence with any party or her legal practitioners other than any discussions relevant to settlement negotiations.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

Costs

1. The costs of the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer, of and incidental to the oral adjournment application on 16 April 2025, be reserved.

1. These orders included that by 30 April 2025, Mr Natanail was to file an affidavit explaining:

(a) the circumstances of both his medical illness/event; and

(b) the circumstances surrounding him being briefed in two matters before two courts at the same time.

1. Despite Orders 3 and 4 requiring Mr Natanail to file an affidavit and provide written submissions by 30 April 2025, he failed to do so by the date ordered.
2. On 4 July 2025, the matter was listed at the request of the parties. At this time, Mr Natanail did not appear. An order was made for him to comply with the orders made on 16 April 2025 by 18 July 2025. Again, he failed to do so by the date ordered.
3. On 12 August 2025, Mr Natanail filed an affidavit purporting to comply with the orders made.
4. Mr Natanail did not provide any written submissions addressing why he ought not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.
5. The proceedings were listed to resume on 1 September 2025. The mother, Mr Natanail's client, remained under cross examination during the adjournment period of over four months.
6. During the adjourned period, in approximately early August 2025, the mother's legal representatives were no longer a Legal Aid Queensland preferred supplier, and the mother was allocated new representation under the cross-examination scheme pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
7. The proceedings recommenced on 1 September 2025, and the mother's cross examination was concluded. The Court then adjourned to enable the mother's new legal representatives to take instructions prior to re-examination. Upon resumption, the mother's legal representatives sought the Court's leave to withdraw their representation on the basis that the mother had "lost confidence" in her legal representatives and had terminated them.
8. The implications of withdrawing her representation at this point in the proceedings was explained to the mother and she represented to the Court that she was prepared to proceed. After explaining re-examination, the mother then clarified those areas of cross examination that she identified.
9. Upon the conclusion of re-examination, the mother was provided an adjournment to familiarise herself with the relevant sections of the Act that she would be required to address in submissions. When the Court resumed, the mother stated that she would rather continue with legal representation. The mother was directed to speak to the duty lawyer and the Court once again adjourned to allow this to occur. Upon recommencing, the mother stated the duty lawyer was not available in person and she was waiting to be contacted by a duty lawyer. At this stage, an oral application was made by the mother to adjourn the proceedings. The application was set down to be heard the following morning on 2 September 2025, to allow the mother time to speak with a duty lawyer and address the Court on the factors that would be relevant to her application.
10. The father and the ICL both opposed the application.
11. On the morning of 2 September 2025, the mother withdrew her application and represented herself until the conclusion of the final hearing on 3 September 2025.

1. The professional conduct issues relating to the mother's counsel are addressed in these reasons because the Court has referred the conduct the mother's counsel to the legal practitioners' regulatory body in Queensland.
2. The cost implications of the adjournment of the final hearing shall be dealt with separately if an application is made. However, additionally and importantly, the consequences of counsel's conduct were:

(a) Loss of the Court's time and resources necessitating a later listing to conclude the trial;

(b) The mother remaining in cross examination over several months;

(c) For a new s 102NA representative to be engaged, who was then terminated which necessitated a further adjournment to address the mother's oral application to adjourn the proceedings (which was ultimately abandoned); and

(d) The mother, for whom English is her second language, to become unrepresented part way through a trial which involved serious allegations of risk to the parties' young child.

1. The point is, the flow-on effect of the conduct of counsel is wide reaching and the impost on the public purse, both as to the s 102NA grant managed by Queensland Legal Aid and the squandering of court time and resources, cannot be ignored.
2. Despite having filed a lengthy affidavit, it is not clear to me whether Mr Natanail had taken the brief in this four-day final hearing before or after he was briefed in the "other matter" in which he appeared in February 2025.
3. At the latest by 21 March 2025, when he appeared on the application to adjourn the final hearing date in this matter which was refused, he knew that he was required to appear as counsel before this Court on 14 April 2025 until the conclusion of the matter on 17 April 2025.
4. Despite being specifically directed to address in his affidavit the circumstances in which he found himself briefed in two courts on the same day, it remains unclear when he received the brief to appear in the other matter. He deposed that he was unaware of the listing until sometime on 15 April 2025, but it is not clear when the matter had been listed by the other court, whether he was present when it was listed or whether his solicitor in fact failed to advise him of the listing until 15 April 2025.
5. In his affidavit at paragraph 54, he deposed that:

I was briefed in a matter to commence in February 2025, which was listed 3 days (the other matter). This was heard in the Brisbane. The matter proceeded for 3 days. One more day was required, and it went part heard for the date of 16 April 2025.

I became aware of this other matter on the 15 April 2025, that the part-heard matter was listed on 16 April 2025, by way of my solicitor discussing the matter- thus a conflict. At this stage I sought to adjourn the matter from illness (the part heard matter). On the 16 April 2025, I sought to adjourn same via Webex or Teams of the part heard matter. It was notified to the court I was unwell and same to my solicitor.

1. Mr Natanail fails to give clear evidence as to whether he attended the 10.00 am hearing in the "other court" via AVL to seek an adjournment. He does not give evidence about the court in which he appeared nor whether he advised the other court that he was part heard in a matter listed for four days before this Court. His evidence suggests that the other court was notified that he was unwell rather than that he appeared, although, the evidence is ambiguous.
2. At no time on 15 April 2025 did Mr Natanail himself inform the Court that he was part-heard in another court having allegedly discovered the dilemma that day.
3. Counsel deposed to the circumstances of his ill health. He said he was unwell but was preparing for the resumption of the trial at 12.00 pm when he collapsed and was taken by ambulance to hospital. His young child and wife were present with him. He is silent as to his appearance in the "other court."
4. While ill health cannot be avoided and there is no criticism of any person who is unable to continue to appear due to ill health, the issue in respect of the conduct of Mr Natanail is that irrespective of his ill health, he had accepted briefs to appear in two matters in different courts listed on the same day in breach of the Barristers' Conduct Rules.

1. Rule 98 of the Bar Association of Queensland's professional conduct rules, the Barristers' Conduct Rules, make it clear that:

A barrister must not accept a brief to appear on a day when the barrister is already committed to appear or is reasonably likely to be required to appear on another brief if by appearing on one of the briefs the barrister would not in the normal course of events be able to appear on the other brief or briefs.

1. The Barristers' Conduct Rules articulate the obligations of Counsel.
2. Not only is Rule 98 plain and clear, but there are numerous other rules, such as Rules 102 and 104, that may be relevant to the conduct of Mr Natanail in accepting this four-day parenting and property brief when already briefed in another matter, or in the alternative, in not returning the brief once he was aware that he was briefed in both matters on the same day.
3. It is not for the Court to determine whether Mr Natanail's conduct is in breach of the Barristers' Conduct Rules or of his professional obligations.

1. Given the opaque nature of the explanation provided by Mr Natanail of how the circumstances arose and his failure to provide any written submissions directly addressing his professional obligations when given an opportunity to do so, the matter must be referred to the relevant body for consideration of his conduct.
2. Accordingly, I request that the Principal Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) provide the following material to the Queensland Legal Services Commission for consideration as to the conduct of Mr Natanail in these proceedings:

(a) Trial directions made by Justice Baumann on 28 November 2024;

(b) Trial directions made by Justice Curran on 5 February 2025;

(c) The Application in a Proceeding dated 18 March 2025 filed by the Respondent Mother seeking to adjourn the final hearing;

(d) The reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 21 March 2025 dismissing the application to adjourn the final hearing;

(e) Transcript of proceedings on 16 April 2025;

(f) Orders made on 16 April 2025;

(g) Orders made on 4 July 2025;

(h) The affidavit of Mr Natanail filed 12 August 2025;

(i) The reasons for judgment accompanying these orders; and

(j) These orders dated 16 October 2025.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Curran.