Sargent & Freeman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1095 (8 August 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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This is an application for review in respect of a Registrar's orders made on 16 July 2025, for the matter to be heard in Town B. The applicant father ("the father") wants the proceedings to be heard in Brisbane on the contention that he needs to take time off from his work because of the travel time to Town B.
2. Under r9.01 o_f the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021_ (Cth) ("the rules") there are particular criteria to which the Court must have regard in relation to change of venue. The Court is satisfied pursuant to r 9.01(3) of the rules that the facilities in Town B are available and can adequately address the issues that the parties have in the proceedings. Whilst the convenience of the parties is a factor, it is not determinative.
3. The respondent wife ("the wife") seeks no change to the order that it be heard in Town B. There is an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") present in the proceedings, and the Court has taken into account the father's contentions that it would be more convenient to him, and that his job is at risk, but the Court does not accept that as an overarching basis upon which there should be any change. The Court has had regard to the expense and cost that would be involved, and the Court appreciates the matter has been listed for a compliance and readiness hearing.
4. In all the circumstances, as a de novo hearing the Court is not satisfied there is any proper basis to set aside the orders made by the Registrar on 16 July 2025, that are subject to the application for review. The Court is not persuaded that it is appropriate to have the matter heard in Brisbane as opposed to Town B.
5. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.