Family Court judgments take up to 13 mts

A WA Family Court judge has blamed “very lengthy” delays of up to more than a year in the delivery of verdicts on workload issues, commenting in two decisions published in one week that he is “painfully aware” of the time between hearings and written reasons.

Justice John Walters made identical comments in two judgments published late last month, one handed down 13 months after a trial and the other about 10 months after a final hearing.

“The delay in the delivery of these reasons arises from work-load issues affecting the trial judge,” Justice Walters said.

“It is not the fault of the parties or their legal advisers, who have taken appropriate steps to inquire as to the progress of the judgment.”

The case that had a delay of 13 months involved complicated trust issues.

The second, published last Friday, went to a trial that formally finished in October 2013 but returned to court for issues relating to superannuation several times up until May before a judgment was handed down last month.

WA Family Court Chief Judge Stephen Thackray said all judges carried a heavy case load, but the workload of individual judges would not be discussed.

The median time to trial for cases in the Family Court, which blew out to 118 weeks in March 2011, has been reduced to 77.5 weeks for the quarter ending on December 31.

“The court has been very successful in reducing the time to trial, but this has increased the workload even further and it is therefore not always possible for judgments to be delivered as promptly as we would like,” Justice Thackray said.

He said there were currently nine pending judgments that were outside the target of being delivered within three months of a final hearing.

“Where possible, judges are given time out of court to assist in reducing any backlog in judgments,” Justice Thackray said.

Family Law Practitioners’ Association of WA president Teresa Farmer said delays in the delivery of judgments were frustrating for couples and could have financial consequences for parties, as well as causing more stress.

Ms Farmer said judges were working hard but their case load was on a rolling list and they generally gave priority to disputes involving children.

She said delays could also pose practical problems because cases had to be reopened if circumstances changed or events intervened.