Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov [2025] FedCFamC1A 173

🔹 Introduction

In Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov [2025] FedCFamC1A 173, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed an oral application by the father (appellant) to adjourn his appeal hearing, despite both the mother (respondent) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) consenting. The Court held that adjournments must serve the overarching purpose of efficient justice and cannot be granted merely because parties agree. The ruling highlights the Court’s statutory duty to manage caseloads efficiently and reminds litigants that litigation serves the public interest, not just private convenience.

🔹 Facts and Issues

• Background Orders: In May 2025, the Family Court of Western Australia determined parenting orders under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• Appeal: The father filed an appeal (June 2025, amended August 2025).
• Readiness: All directions were complied with: transcripts, appeal book, and summaries of argument were filed. The matter was ready for hearing on 1 October 2025.
• Adjournment Application: On 17 September 2025, the father sought adjournment (with consent from the mother and ICL). His reasons: stress, unemployment, vague “other proceedings”, and allegations of “judicial bullying” and “corruption”.
• Key Issue: Should the Court adjourn an appeal hearing when reasons are weak, but all parties consent?

🔹 Rule (Law)

• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth):
• s 67(1) – Court must resolve disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.
• s 68(1) – Parties have a duty to help the Court fulfil that purpose.
• Case law:
• Aon Risk Services Aust Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175 – efficiency, minimisation of delay, and public interest in the resolution of litigation override party autonomy.
• Principle: Adjournments require proper grounds; consent of parties alone is insufficient.

🔹 Application (Law to Facts)

• The father’s stated reasons (stress, unemployment, vague allegations of misconduct) did not logically prevent the hearing from proceeding.
• All parties had complied with directions, and the case was ready for hearing. Granting adjournment would waste judicial resources and delay justice.
• Consent from the mother and ICL could not override statutory duties; their support for adjournment was contrary to their obligation under s 68(1) to assist the Court in efficient resolution.
• Justice Austin noted litigation is not controlled by parties’ “whims”; courts must act in the public interest.

🔹 Judgment and Reasoning

• The Court dismissed the oral adjournment application.
• Justice Austin emphasised:
• Adjournments must be justified by genuine reasons connected to the appeal’s readiness.
• The avoidance of undue delay and efficient use of resources transcend party convenience.
• “The resolution of litigation serves the public, not just the parties” (citing Aon Risk Services at 189–190, 211–217).
• The appeal would proceed on its scheduled date, 1 October 2025.

🔹 Take-Home Lesson

Adjournments are not granted simply because both parties agree. Courts have a statutory and public duty to resolve cases efficiently. Litigants must provide clear, valid reasons for delay, and consent cannot substitute for legal justification.

👉 Lesson: In family law appeals, readiness for hearing and efficient case management outweigh party agreement. Courts serve the public interest in timely justice.