Taklit & Ceres [2025] FedCFamC2F 1878 (6 November 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 an adjournment by the respondent husband, in circumstances where the respondent's counsel, Mr C, informed the respondent's solicitor, Mr Jeremy, two days prior to the trial commencing that he was unable to take the brief.
2. The respondent's solicitor, Mr Jeremy, seeks an adjournment of the trial due to the unavailability of counsel. In circumstances where the respondent has been non-compliant to various Orders made by this court, the application for an adjournment is opposed by the applicant wife to the substantive application.
3. Where Mr Jeremy is a solicitor, with significant experience, having been admitted to practice since 1993 and drafted the respondent's material, the application for adjournment was not granted.
4. After standing down for several minutes to allow Mr Jeremy to formulate questions to be put to the witness, Mr Jeremy informed the court that he was unable to do so. He was put on notice as to a potential costs order being made against him as he is an officer of the court and his duty is to assist the court.
5. Notwithstanding that, he informed the court that he would not ask any questions of the witness, as he was unable to do so. Mr Jeremy informed the court that despite having two days to find alternate counsel, he made enquiries of only three barristers. The Bar has in excess of potentially 100 family law barristers, whether within the Brisbane locality or its surrounds.
6. In the circumstances, the court is to make a costs order against Mr Jeremy personally, fixed in the sum of $5,885 and to be paid within 90 days. The trial will be adjourned to the earliest available date when the court resumes, which will be 16 January 2026.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Jacobs.