I've often heard that judges favour a litigant who is represented in court over self-represented litigants. Whilst this is not supposed to be the case, it's not hard to see from this example how neither party having representation could be a nightmare for a judge.

Last week a judge was asked to rule on one such ridiculously frivolous dispute over the ownership of a $10 print of the Mona Lisa.

Several months ago, the Family Court Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, said in an interview with The Australian that her court did not have the resources it needed to protect parents and children from violence. She has recommended the government allocate significantly more funding to help in facilitating the court to prioritise cases dealing with the serious allegations of family violence, to ensure the safety of children.

Chief Justice Bryant said the family law system needed an extra $20 million for more family consultants and registrars.

Overworked judges around Australia currently have about 3 years of work as a backlog according to a report released in 2016 by The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland.  

It must then infuriate the Chief Justice and all judges when warring couples waste valuable court time and money from the public purse bringing their petty spats before a judge.  

Judge Joshua Wilson was scathing in his displeasure when a couple appeared before him in the Melbourne Family Law Court. Their dispute was over a pile of chipped paving bricks and a broken ride-on mower, among other things.

Judge Wilson declined to intervene in the matters saying it would be “wasteful of public funds” to have “commonwealth-funded judges” weighing into disputes over items worth “an absurdly small amount”.

The case before Judge Wilson, known as Noakes v Fadden, involved a couple in their 40s. Neither party was represented in court. They each came with a mountain of documents and affidavits that they expected Judge Wilson to review. The judge was not impressed.

“The task of even locating the evidence was a formidable one,” he said, adding that he had been asked to consider the rightful ownership of “an outdoor heater valued at $80, and a print of Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece Mona Lisa valued at $10”.

“It is one thing for litigants to come to court seeking a judicial determination of disputes they are unable to resolve,” Judge Wilson said. “It is something altogether different for a litigant to expect a federal judge of the court that deals with approximately 100,000 cases each year to make determinations about an asset valued at $10 or $80 or even $1000.

Many of those 100,000 cases involve children in dire circumstances facing family violence, so who do these two bozos think they are to be consuming valuable resources plus their own time, money and energy arguing over junk? We'd all be better of if the put it aside and moved forward with their separate lives. It’s a disgraceful waste and Judge Wilson is right in my opinion to disregard their petty grumblings.

“The pressure on this court to operate in a high volume atmosphere is exquisite. By and large, this court dispatches its business highly efficiently and supremely cost effectively. The public interest is well served by that approach,” said the judge.

“But the public would be entitled to complain if it knew that the public purse was being consumed by a commonwealth funded judge being required to make determinations about assets of ridiculously small amounts.

“The time spent in that activity could be better spent in hearing in determining other cases.”

He cited an example of the couple’s ride-on mower, which the wife valued at $1200 and the husband said was worthless because it was broken. Another example was a pile of brick pavers, which the wife valued at $2000, but the husband said were worth $400, plus he wanted the judge to take into account that many were cracked and that he’d spent “three days’ labour stacking them from pallets”.

The judge ultimately decided not to accept many of the disputed items for determination, saying simply: “It is wasteful of public funds to require a federal judge to do so.”

Well played, Judge Wilson. Well played.