The complainant and her husband were represented in family law proceedings and a fraudulent conveyance action

20020012 - The complainant and her husband were represented in family law proceedings and a fraudulent conveyance action. She complained about the delay in obtaining a decision and the fact that, although the judge awarded her husband’s exwife her costs in the fraudulent conveyance action, he failed to award her husband his costs in the application to vary support and arrears. The complainant stated that the couple’s young children had suffered due to the delay in obtaining judgment.

The judge explained that there were delays in bringing the action to trial due to the complainant’s requests for adjournment and her request to try together both the fraudulent conveyance action and application to vary. While his decision was under reserve, the judge had waited for a decision of the court of appeal which would deal with some of the issues before him. When the decision was not rendered, and upon being contacted by counsel for the parties, he had delivered his reasons. The complainant was advised of the six-month guideline for delivering decisions taken under reserve unless there are special circumstances. In this case, the matter was complex, involving the trial of two matters together. In addition, it was not unreasonable for the judge to wait for the decision of the court of appeal. The delay in rendering a decision on costs and the amount of the arrears was a separate decision and the two-month period to deliver a decision on these issues was within the guideline. The complainant was advised that she had provided no evidence of bias in favour of the first wife. The husband had divided success in that he was successful on the application to vary, but unsuccessful on the fraudulent conveyance action. He was successful on the issue of the amount of arrears and unsuccessful on the issue of costs. This divided success did not support the allegation of bias.