J. Mountford

The applicant mother and respondent father were before the court on a motion regarding household chattels and the return of the family cat, Maui.

The court adjourned the issue of household chattels but proceeded to determine the issue of the cat.

The court strongly criticized the expenditure of judicial and Office of the Children's Lawyer resources on a dispute over a pet, noting the severe backlog in family courts.

Finding that the father had left the cat behind on separation and that the child had been caring for it for three years, the court dismissed the motion for the return of the cat and ordered the father to pay $1,000 in costs to the mother.

At a Trial Management Conference, the self-represented applicant sought an order to present her evidence in chief and that of most of her witnesses by affidavit.

The court denied the request, noting significant problems with affidavit evidence in chief, particularly when one party is self-represented.

The court highlighted concerns regarding impeachment, the inclusion of inadmissible evidence, the disruption of proper trial order, the tendency for affidavits to include irrelevant information, and the inability of the trial judge to properly assess credibility.

The self-represented applicant brought an urgent, ex parte motion seeking to set aside a recent consent order and requesting 28 different heads of relief.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not meet the requirements for an urgent or ex parte motion under the Family Law Rules or the applicable practice direction.

The court also declined to follow a recent decision that expanded the definition of urgency to include systemic delay and coercive control, noting the practical burden such an expansion would place on Superior Court Justices in jurisdictions without Associate Justices.